James C. Howard, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia
63 Va. App. 580
Va. Ct. App.2014Background
- James C. Howard, Jr. was indicted by a grand jury on July 9, 2012 for burglary and grand larceny; indictments were endorsed "true bill" and signed by the grand jury foreman.
- The grand jury returned to open court and handed the signed indictments to the deputy clerk, who checked them and passed them to the judge.
- The trial judge entered an order on July 12, 2012 reciting the grand jury proceedings and listing the indictments (case numbers, charges, and the foreman’s finding). The indictments themselves were placed in the defendant’s electronic case file.
- Howard argued the indictments were invalid because (1) they were not read aloud in open court (he relied on Reed and earlier authorities), and (2) the court’s order did not include a photographic image of the indictments as part of the order book.
- The trial court ruled the indictments were valid; the Court of Appeals reviewed the legal question de novo and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an indictment is "presented in open court" only if read aloud verbatim | Reed requires an oral announcement; indictments must be read aloud in court | "Presented in open court" means formally returned/recorded; oral verbatim reading not required | Reading aloud not required; presenting (returning) in open court and recording suffices |
| Whether a court order listing the grand jury’s actions must transcribe indictments verbatim in the order book | Order must include a verbatim transcription or oral recital of the indictments | A judge’s order reflecting the grand jury’s return is sufficient to record the fact of presentation | Order recounting grand jury return satisfies the recording requirement |
| Whether an image of the indictment must be embedded in the court’s order (electronic order book) | Code § 17.1-240 requires a photographic image be part of the order | Electronic storage of the indictments in the case file satisfies recording requirements; no image required in the order itself | No separate photographic image in the order is required; electronic case file storage suffices |
| Whether procedural defects (reading/recording) invalidate the indictments | Failure to read/photograph indictments invalidates them | Defects described do not invalidate when indictments were returned and recorded as true bills | Indictments valid; procedural steps followed were proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Reed v. Commonwealth, 281 Va. 471 (2011) (true bill becomes valid when returned in open court and recorded)
- Simmons v. Commonwealth, 89 Va. 156 (1892) (record must show delivery/return in court; order-book record is essential)
- White v. Commonwealth, 70 Va. (29 Gratt.) 824 (1878) (indictment valid where finding was announced in court and entered of record)
- McBride v. Commonwealth, 24 Va. App. 30 (1997) (a court speaks through its orders; orders presumed to reflect proceedings accurately)