Scott v. Commonwealth
58 Va. App. 35
| Va. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Late-night bar incident in Salem; Scott, after drinking, drives SUV at high speed from a parking lot, striking and killing Blankenship and injuring others, then collides with a police car and damages a parked SUV (>$1,000).
- Commonwealth indicted Scott for first-degree murder, malicious wounding, attempted malicious wounding, three counts of felony hit-and-run, and felony property damage under Code § 18.2-137(B).
- Trial proceeded as a bench trial; the court convicted Scott of involuntary manslaughter, felony property damage (18.2-137(B)), and one felony hit-and-run, acquitting him of murder and malicious wounding counts.
- Scott moved to strike the evidence on multiple grounds, arguing lack of intent for several charges; the trial court denied the motions and sentenced Scott to ten years for involuntary manslaughter, with five years suspended.
- On appeal, Scott challenges sufficiency, argues excessiveness of the involuntary manslaughter sentence, and contends error in applying 18.2-137(B) to criminal negligence; the Virginia Court of Appeals issues address waiver, statutory interpretation, and remand for re-sentencing under 18.2-137(A).
- Court affirms involuntary manslaughter and felony hit-and-run convictions and sentence; reverses the 18.2-137(B) conviction for property damage and remands for re-sentencing under 18.2-137(A).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Scott waived sufficiency challenge to involuntary manslaughter and hit-and-run | Scott did not properly object at trial | Waiver due to lack of specific trial objections | Waived; sufficiency challenges not preserved; convictions affirmed for involuntary manslaughter and hit-and-run |
| Whether the involuntary manslaughter sentence was excessive | Sentence within statutory range should be upheld | Discretionary restraint not abused | Not an abuse of discretion; within range; affirmed |
| Whether 18.2-137(B) properly applied to criminal negligence | Crowder controls; criminal negligence supports 18.2-137(B) | Statute amended; negligence not covered by 18.2-137(B) | Statute interpreted anew; 18.2-137(B) does not cover criminal negligence; reversed as to property damage; remanded for 18.2-137(A) re-sentencing |
| Remand for re-sentencing under 18.2-137(A) after reversal | N/A | N/A | Remand for re-sentencing under 18.2-137(A) |
Key Cases Cited
- Crowder v. Commonwealth, 16 Va.App. 382, 429 S.E.2d 893 (1993) (statutory interpretation under 18.2-137 as amended; unlawful act includes criminal negligence)
- Noakes v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 338, 699 S.E.2d 284 (2010) (distinguishing intentional vs. negligent mens rea under 18.2-137(B))
- Crowder (en banc), 17 Va.App. 202, 436 S.E.2d 192 (1993) (en banc treatment of Crowder interpretation)
- Bazemore v. Commonwealth, 42 Va.App. 203, 590 S.E.2d 602 (2004) (preservation of objections under Rule 5A:18)
- Evans v. Evans, 280 Va. 76, 695 S.E.2d 173 (2010) (statutory interpretation; pure question of law)