Kozmina v. Com.
706 S.E.2d 860
| Va. | 2011Background
- Kozmina challenged the Commonwealth's Attorney's authority to prosecute a first-offense refusal under Code §18.2-268.3.
- She argued first offenses are civil and only the Attorney General may prosecute.
- The Fairfax County trial court denied the motion and convicted Kozmina under §18.2-268.3.
- On appeal she claimed trial and appellate prosecution by the Commonwealth's Attorney was improper.
- The issue presented: whether the Commonwealth's Attorney may prosecute first-offense refusals under §18.2-268.3(D) when such offenses are civil.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the Commonwealth's Attorney prosecute a first-offense refusal under §18.2-268.3(D)? | Kozmina. | Commonwealth's Attorney. | Yes; authority lies under §18.2-268.4(B) and §15.2-1627(B). |
Key Cases Cited
- Meeks v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 798 (2007) (plain language governs statutory interpretation)
- Conyers v. Martial Arts World of Richmond, Inc., 273 Va. 96 (2007) (statutory interpretation de novo)
- Moreau v. Fuller, 276 Va. 127 (2008) (Commonwealth's Attorneys may pursue civil and certain non-criminal matters)