Case Title: Greene v. Commonwealth

Citation: 

Docket Number: 081151

State: virginia

Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Date: 2009-02-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
Present:  Hassell, C.J., Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and 
Goodwyn, JJ., and Lacy, S.J. 
 
LURIA NICOLE GREENE 
 
v.  Record No. 081151 
 
 
OPINION BY SENIOR JUSTICE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    ELIZABETH B. LACY 
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA  
 
    February 27, 2009 
 
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 
 
 
In this appeal we consider whether a person who fails to 
answer a subpoena issued by the Virginia Department of 
Charitable Gaming (the Department) violates a provision of 
Article 1.1:1 of Title 18.2, the Charitable Gaming statutes, and 
therefore is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor pursuant to Code 
§ 18.2-340.37. 
FACTS 
 
In 2005, the Department was investigating the Phoebus 
Athletic League.  In conjunction with the investigation, the 
Department issued a subpoena to Luria Nicole Greene, the League 
treasurer.  The subpoena required Greene to appear as a witness 
and present certain documents to a Department agent on January 
19, 2006 at the Department’s office in Norfolk.  Greene did not 
appear at the Department’s office as directed in the subpoena. 
 
Greene was indicted for willfully failing to comply with 
the Department’s subpoena.  At trial, Greene moved to strike the 
Commonwealth’s evidence arguing that disobeying the Department’s 
subpoena was not a criminal offense.  The trial court denied 
Greene’s motion, found Greene guilty, sentenced her to a term of 
60 days in the Norfolk city jail, and imposed a $500 fine.  The 
trial court suspended the 60-day jail term and placed Greene on 
unsupervised probation for a period of two years. 
 
Greene appealed her conviction to the Court of Appeals of 
Virginia arguing, inter alia, that no statute makes the failure 
to answer the Department’s subpoena a crime.  The Court of 
Appeals affirmed Greene’s conviction in an unpublished opinion.  
Greene v. Commonwealth, Record No. 3012-06-1 (April 22, 2008).  
Greene filed a timely appeal to this Court, raising the same 
issue. 
DISCUSSION 
 
This appeal involves the construction of a penal statute. 
The applicable principles of statutory construction which we 
apply in such a case are well established.  A penal statute must 
be strictly construed and may not be extended by implication.  
Jones v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 121, 124, 661 S.E.2d 412, 414 
(2008) (citations omitted).  Courts must limit the application 
of a penal statute to cases falling clearly within the scope of 
the statute and may not add words to the statute.  Farrakhan v. 
Commonwealth, 273 Va. 177, 181, 639 S.E.2d 227, 229 (2007).  The 
construction of a statute is a matter of law which we review de 
novo.  Id. at 180, 639 S.E.2d at 229. 
 
2
Greene was indicted based on Code §§ 18.2-340.18 and 18.2-
340.37.  Code § 18.2-340.18(4) gives the Department the 
authority to issue subpoenas for witnesses and for the 
production of documents.  Code § 18.2-340.37(A) states that 
“[a]ny person who violates the provisions of this article” is 
guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.  The “article” referenced in 
Code § 18.2-340.37 is Article 1.1:1, Chapter 8 of Title 18.2, 
styled “Charitable Gaming.”  The unambiguous terms of the 
statute provide that a person is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor 
only if she violates a provision of Article 1.1:1. 
Code § 18.2-340.18 is contained in Article 1.1:1, but while 
the section authorizes the Department to issue subpoenas, it 
does not state that the failure to comply with the subpoena is a 
statutory violation.  No other provision in Article 1.1:1 
imposes a penalty for non-compliance with a Department-issued 
subpoena or makes such non-compliance a violation of a provision 
of that Article.*  Compare Code § 3.2-3218 (failure to comply 
with subpoena issued by Milk Commission is Class 2 misdemeanor), 
                     
* Although no penalty for non-compliance with a department-
issued subpoena is contained in Article 1.1:1, such non-
compliance does not escape penalty.  Code § 2.2-4022, of the 
Administrative Procedure Act, provides that “unless the basic 
law under which the agency is operating provides some other 
recourse, enforcement, or penalty, the agency may procure an 
order of enforcement [of the subpoena] from [the circuit] 
court.”  A court may summarily find a person who fails to comply 
with a court-issued subpoena guilty of contempt.  Code § 18.2-
456(5). 
 
3
Code § 3.2-4726 (failure to comply with subpoena issued by 
Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services guilty of 
contempt and certified to appropriate court for punishment), and 
Code § 4.1-319 (failure to comply with subpoena issued by the 
Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board guilty of Class 1 
misdemeanor).  
 
As stated above, penal statutes must be strictly construed 
and may not be extended by implication.  Therefore, we hold that 
because non-compliance with a subpoena issued by the Department 
is not identified as a violation of Article 1.1:1 of the 
Charitable Gaming Statutes, Greene could not be guilty of a 
Class 1 misdemeanor pursuant to Code § 18.2-340.37(A) for 
failure to comply with the subpoena issued by the Department. 
Accordingly, we will reverse the judgment of the Court of 
Appeals affirming Greene’s conviction, vacate that conviction, 
and dismiss the indictment against her.  
Reversed, vacated, and dismissed. 
 
4