Jeffrey D. Wells v. Commonwealth of Virginia
65 Va. App. 722
| Va. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On May 2, 2014 Trooper Napier, using stationary radar on I-64, recorded an SUV (driven by Jeffrey Wells) at 94 mph in a 60 mph zone; Napier stopped the vehicle and cited Wells for reckless driving under Va. Code § 46.2-862.
- At trial Napier testified the radar “was working properly” and displayed 94 mph; Wells raised no contemporaneous objection to the radar testimony or its admissibility and did not cross-examine on calibration.
- After the Commonwealth rested, Wells moved to strike, arguing insufficient evidence because the Commonwealth did not introduce a radar calibration certificate or show calibration within six months.
- The trial court denied the motion, convicted Wells of reckless driving, and imposed jail, fine, and license suspension; Wells appealed claiming insufficient evidence due to lack of proof the radar was properly calibrated.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed whether the absence of calibration proof affected sufficiency of evidence versus admissibility, and whether Wells preserved an admissibility objection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to convict absent proof radar was properly calibrated | Wells: Commonwealth failed to prove radar calibration/accuracy so evidence insufficient to establish speed | Commonwealth: Radar reading and officer testimony were admitted without objection and suffice to prove speed; calibration goes to admissibility/weight | Held: Sufficiency challenge fails—radar testimony was admitted and, viewed in the light most favorable to Commonwealth, was sufficient to prove speed |
| Whether Commonwealth was required to present calibration certificate absent objection | Wells: Court should require affirmative proof of recent calibration | Commonwealth: Statute and precedent require certificate only if a question about calibration is raised | Held: Certificate requirement applies when calibration is contested; failure to object waived that issue |
| Whether Wells preserved challenge to radar admissibility | Wells: Raised issue in motion to strike after evidence rested | Commonwealth: Objection to admissibility must be contemporaneous; motion to strike is too late | Held: Wells waived admissibility objection under Rule 5A:18 by not objecting when evidence was offered |
| Whether admissibility and sufficiency are distinct analyses | Wells: Frames calibration as sufficiency issue | Commonwealth: Calibration relates to admissibility and weight; sufficiency considers totality of admitted evidence | Held: Court reiterates admissibility ≠ sufficiency; all admitted evidence (including potentially objectionable evidence) is considered when assessing sufficiency |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Royals v. Commonwealth, 198 Va. 876 (radar admissibility objection must be made at trial; calibration contested there)
- Gray v. Commonwealth, 18 Va. App. 663 (calibration certificate and objections to radar evidence required to preserve challenge)
- Kondaurov v. Kerdasha, 271 Va. 646 (objections to admissibility must be made when evidence is presented)
- Banks v. Mario Indus., 274 Va. 438 (distinguishing admissibility and sufficiency of evidence)
- Lunsford v. Commonwealth, 55 Va. App. 59 (when reviewing sufficiency, courts consider all admitted evidence)