Rives v. Com., 726 S.E.2d 248

Rives was convicted in Virginia Beach for using obscene, threatening, or indecent language over a telephone in violation of Code § 18.2-427.
undisputed facts show he repeatedly called V.L. and left four vulgar, angry messages while threatening sexual violence.
The issue presented was whether the language used was obscene and harassing under § 18.2-427.
The Court of Appeals applied the Miller obscenity test, adopting a broader obscenity standard from Barson and Allman.
The Supreme Court reversed or affirmed in part, holding the threat-focused language satisfied § 18.2-427, and that threats may be punished without obscenity.
Dissent by Chief Justice Kinser would reverse, arguing the language did not meet the statutory obscenity definition and that the trial record did not support the verdict on that theory.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rives' language violated § 18.2-427 as obscene or harassing.	Commonwealth: language was obscene/harassing and prohibited.	Rives: language, while vulgar, did not meet obscenity requirements.	Objection sustained; conviction affirmed based on statute.
Whether threats to commit illegal acts require obscenity under § 18.2-427 or are separate.	Commonwealth: threats are punishable even without obscenity when directed to coerce/harass.	Rives: obscenity standard should govern all three disjunctive offenses.	Threats may violate § 18.2-427 without the obscenity requirement applied to the first two offenses.
Whether the 'right result for the wrong reason' doctrine applies given trial notice.	Rives was charged under the statute and evidence supports the outcome.	Kinser: doctrine inapplicable because trial did not permit rebuttal to the contested theory.	Doctrine not applicable; majority adopts statutory interpretation to justify the result.

Barson v. Commonwealth, 284 Va. _, 726 S.E.2d 292 (2012) (premised obscenity interpretation for §18.2-427)
Allman v. Commonwealth, 43 Va.App. 104, 596 S.E.2d 531 (2004) (Miller test applied to obscenity for §18.2-427)
Lofgren v. Commonwealth, 55 Va.App. 116, 684 S.E.2d 223 (2009) (obscenity standard for §18.2-427 discriminates by language)
Perry v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 572, 701 S.E.2d 431 (2010) (right result for the wrong reason doctrine context)
Whitehead v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 105, 677 S.E.2d 265 (2009) (notice requirement for proof theories)
Zinone v. Lee's Crossing Homeowners Ass'n, 282 Va. 330, 714 S.E.2d 922 (2011) (statutory language presumed intentional; language choice matters)
Thorne v. Bailey, 846 F.2d 241 (4th Cir. 1988) (speech not protected when it threatens violence)
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) (foundation for obscenity test)