Carrol v. Commonwealth

In this case, The Va. Court of Appeals ruled that a defendant's probation was violated. Following his Alford plea to rape in 2007, the defendant had been ordered to complete sex offender treatment. However, the defendant continued to deny all accounts of the rape. In essence, the Court of Appeals ruled that Alford plea consequences are the same as a guilty plea.

Grant v. Vommonwealth

In this case, the Virginia Court of Appeals dismissed defendant's conviction for driving under the influence. Defendant's attorney filed a "Notice of Confrontation Rights Pursuant to Virginia Code Section 19.2-187" two months prior to Circuit Court trial. At trial, the prosecutor failed to have the breath test operator testify.
Over the defendant's objection, the Court admitted the certificate of analysis. The Court of Appeals essentially said the United States Supreme Court case of Melendez-Diaz was controlling. Thus, the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution had been violated.

Damon v. York

In this case, the Virginia Court of Appeals held that a woman who married a child's biological mother in Canada, lived with the mother for 21 months and who sought visitation with the child was not a "person with a legitimate interest" under Virginia law. The marital relationship was void under Virginia law. Thus, the denial of the petition of visitation was affirmed.

Kellerman, Adm'r v. McDonough

In this case the Virginia supreme Court held that when a parent gives up supervision and care of their child to another parent or adult, who is willing to watch and supervise the child, the supervising caregiver must accomplish the duty with reasonable care. However, the Court also stated that the supervising adult is not an insurer of the child's safety.

Unfortunately, in this case, a parent allowed the supervised child to ride with a young male who had the reputation for being a reckless driver and in complete contradiction to the instructions of the parent of the deceased child who told the supervising adult not to allow his child to ride in a car being driven by young males. The supervising parent ignored the instructions and allowed the decedent to ride in a car driven by a young male. The young male was involved in an accident, and the supervised child was killed.

Atkins v. Commonwealth

In this case, the Court of Appeals held that a defendant cannot be convicted for obstruction of justice based on his flight and having originally given a false name. The defendant's conviction under Section 18.2-460 is reversed.

Jones v. Commonwealth

The Virginia Supreme Court stated, "A positive alert from a narcotics detection dog establishes probable cause to conduct a search of a vehicle and that the evidence seized during the search is admissible after a proper foundation has been laid to show that the dog was sufficiently trained to be reliable in detecting narcotics.""

Arizona v. Johnson

In Arizona v. Johnson, the United States Supreme Court stated, "In a traffic stop setting, the first Terry condition - a lawful investigatory stop - is met whenever it is lawful for police to detain an automobile and its occupants pending inquiry into a vehicular violation. The police need not have, in addition, cause to believe any occupant of the vehicle is involved in criminal activity. To justify a patdown of the driver or a passenger during a traffic stop, ...the police must harbor reasonable suspicion that the person subjected to the frisk is armed and dangerous." The Court further referenced that the police may frisk an armed passenger without any evidence of a crime.