Hood v. Com.
701 S.E.2d 421
| Va. | 2010Background
- Hood was identified as SVPA-eligible after serving his criminal sentence and underwent a pre-petition mental health examination conducted by Dr. Miller, during which Hood refused to participate; Hood did not have an opportunity to consult with counsel about the consequences of refusing before his decision; after counsel was appointed post-petition, Hood offered to rescind his refusal and cooperate; the circuit court held Hood’s prior refusal barred him from presenting expert evidence under SVPA provisions; at trial Hood was not allowed to present expert evidence and the court found Hood to be a sexually violent predator, with dispositional hearings thereafter addressing less-restrictive alternatives.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process allows Hood to rescind his cooperation refusal after counsel is appointed | Hood | Commonwealth | Yes; circuit court erred in barring Dr. Nelson's testimony |
| Whether the SVPA statutes permit discretionary, rather than mandatory, exclusion of defense expert testimony when a defendant previously refused cooperation | Hood | Commonwealth | Discretionary exclusion; not mandatory; remand for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Jenkins v. Director, Va. Ctr. for Behav. Rehab., 271 Va. 4 (2006) (due process in SVPA proceedings includes right to evidence and counsel at key stages; minimal safeguards)
- Townes v. Commonwealth, 269 Va. 234 (2005) (civil commitment requires due process protections; deprivation of liberty triggers safeguards)
- Warrington v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 365 (2010) (due process in SVPA civil proceedings applies; how process is determined)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (framework for determining what process is due in deprivation scenarios)
- Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 (1980) (pre-commitment liberty deprivation requires due process protections)