Smith v. Com.
282 Va. 449
Va.2011Background
- Smith was arrested in Newport News for possession with intent to distribute marijuana; grand jury indicted him on Nov. 13, 2007, for that offense; two days later he applied to purchase a .40 caliber pistol and signed an ATF form containing a false answer to question 11(b); a state police officer later discovered the Newport News indictment and the pawnshop canceled the sale; Smith was charged with making a false statement on a firearm form in violation of Code § 18.2-308.2:2; at trial the Commonwealth proved the ATF form and indictment but Smith testified he did not know of the indictment when signing the form; the trial court denied the motion to strike, and the circuit court found him guilty, which the Court of Appeals affirmed en banc before the Virginia Supreme Court granted review; the issue on appeal was whether the evidence supported a conviction under § 18.2-308.2:2(K).
- The form signed by Smith warned that false statements were felonies, and he answered “No” to whether he was under indictment for a felony; the police later learned of the indictment, and the pawnshop canceled the sale.
- The Virginia Supreme Court held that the statute requires a showing that the defendant had actual knowledge that his statement was false when he made it; the evidence did not prove Smith knew of the indictment when he signed the form, so the Commonwealth failed to prove an element beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The decision reversed the Court of Appeals and vacated the conviction, dismissing the indictment.
- The holding clarifies that the “willfully and intentionally” standard in § 18.2-308.2:2(K) requires actual knowledge of falsity, not merely a deliberate disregard for the truth.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 18.2-308.2:2(K) requires actual knowledge of falsity | Commonwealth urged a broader scienter standard | Smith argued no knowledge of falsity unless proven | Requires actual knowledge of falsity (strict scienter) |
| Whether Smith knew of the indictment when signing the ATF form | Commonwealth relies on Smith’s awareness of felony and trial setup as indicative of knowledge | Smith lacked evidence of knowledge of indictment | No evidence Smith knew of indictment at signing |
| Whether the evidence sufficed to convict under the statute | Evidence supported willful and intentional false statement | Evidence failed to prove element of knowledge beyond reasonable doubt | Insufficient evidence; conviction reversed and dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Halifax Corp. v. First Union Nat'l Bank, 262 Va. 91 (2001) (plain meaning governs when language is unambiguous)
- Viney v. Commonwealth, 269 Va. 296 (2005) (appellate standard for sufficiency; defer to trial court unless plainly wrong)
- O'Dell v. Commonwealth, 234 Va. 672 (1988) (need every element proven beyond reasonable doubt)
- Hester, 880 F.2d 799 (4th Cir. 1989) (federal standard for scienter; not controlling here)
- United States v. Hayden, 64 F.3d 126 (3d Cir. 1995) (discussion of willfulness and knowledge)
- Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184 (1998) (definition of willfulness; contextual)