Orlando Rondell Williams v. Commonwealth of Virginia
733 S.E.2d 124
Va. Ct. App.2012Background
- Williams was arrested by Richmond Police on February 13, 2011.
- Two bullets and two empty shell casings were found on Williams during a lawful search.
- Officer Kleinholz testified as firearms expert and identified the bullets as a .357 Magnum and a .32 S&W.
- Kleinholz could not say with 100% certainty that the bullets contained gunpowder but would expect they did.
- The trial court concluded there was no law requiring a propellant in the ammunition under the statute and denied a motion to strike.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 18.2-308.2(D) requires a propellant to prove ammunition. | Williams argues propellant must be proven. | Commonwealth argues the statute allows a propellant or primer as alternatives. | Propellant not required; statute’s disjunctive 'or' permits alternative elements. |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. Commonwealth, 263 Va. 573 (2002) (firearm defined by design to expel a projectile; operability not required)
- Rose v. Commonwealth, 53 Va. App. 505 (2009) (disjunctive 'or' yields alternatives in statutory terms)
- Gunn v. Commonwealth, 272 Va. 580 (2006) (plain meaning governs penal statutes unless ambiguous)
- Chapman v. Commonwealth, 56 Va. App. 725 (2010) (statutory interpretation of penal provisions; lenity not applied to plain meaning)
- Coles v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 549 (2004) (correct approach to interpreting statute with disjunctive terms)
- De’Armond v. Commonwealth, 51 Va. App. 26 (2007) (lenity applies only to genuine ambiguities in penal statutes)