Turner v. Commonwealth
295 Va. 104
Va.2018Background
- Turner, a homeowner on Lindsay Lane (a public road), hung a noose and a black life-size mannequin in a tree in his front yard about 15–30 feet from the road, visible from the public way.
- Turner displayed the noose with intent to intimidate African-American neighbors; evidence showed it tended to place some neighbors in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury.
- Turner was indicted and convicted under Va. Code § 18.2-423.2(B) (displaying a noose on a highway or other public place with intent to intimidate and tending to place another in reasonable fear).
- Turner argued the display was on his private property and thus not a "public place" under subsection (B); trial court and Court of Appeals rejected that argument and affirmed conviction.
- The Virginia Supreme Court reviewed de novo whether a privately owned but publicly visible display qualifies as being on a "public place" for § 18.2-423.2(B).
Issues
| Issue | Turner’s Argument | Commonwealth’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a noose displayed on privately owned property but visible from a public road is a "public place" under § 18.2-423.2(B) | A privately owned display cannot be a "public place," so subsection B does not apply | "Public place" is not limited to public property; visibility to the public suffices | Court held such privately owned but publicly visible property is a "public place" under subsection B |
| Whether subsection B is limited to public property because subsection A references "private property" | Because § A addresses private property of another, § B must mean public property | Different word choice ("property" v. "place") shows distinct meanings; § B was intended to cover places visible to public regardless of ownership | Court rejected Turner's reading; difference in terms implies different scope; § B not limited to public property |
| Whether longstanding precedent (Hackney) governs the meaning of "public place" | Argued for narrower modern definition (referencing Black's) | Reliance on Hackney and common definitions supports including privately owned, publicly visible locations | Court applied Hackney: a "public place" includes private property generally visible to the public |
| Whether First Amendment claim (absolute right to display) precludes conviction | Turner asserted First Amendment protection for display on his property | Commonwealth did not need to reach this; issue was abandoned at oral argument | Court did not decide First Amendment claim (abandoned); conviction affirmed on statutory grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Hackney v. Commonwealth, 186 Va. 888, 45 S.E.2d 241 (Va. 1947) (defines "public place" to include private property generally visible to the public)
- Turner v. Commonwealth, 67 Va. App. 46, 792 S.E.2d 299 (Ct. App. 2016) (Court of Appeals affirmed that privately owned but publicly visible display may be a "public place")
- Lawlor v. Commonwealth, 285 Va. 187 (Va. 2013) (statutory construction principles: give words ordinary meaning and ascertain legislative intent)
- Waldrop v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. 210 (Va. 1998) (penal statutes construed strictly; defendant entitled to benefit of reasonable doubt)
- United States v. White, 810 F.3d 212 (4th Cir. 2016) (discusses true-threat doctrine in criminal context)