Source: http://recklessdrivingprincewilliamvirginia.blogspot.com/2014/03/
Timestamp: 2018-07-22 12:11:10
Document Index: 396958546

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 46', '§ 18', '§ 19', '§ 46', '§ 46', '§ 46', '§ 46', '§ 46', '§ 46', '§ 46', '§ 46']

Reckless Driving Lawyers Prince William Virginia: March 2014
Reckless Driving In Virginia Lawyers Prince William Code 46.2-852
11:19 AM | Posted by Atchuthan Sris | Edit Post
Defendant sought review of a judgment of the Circuit Court of Prince William (Virginia), which convicted him in a bench trial of driving after having been adjudicated an habitual offender in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-357..
Reckless Driving In Virginia Lawyers Prince William Violation Code 18.2-266
8:58 AM | Posted by Atchuthan Sris | Edit Post
Defendant was convicted by the general district court of reckless driving. He appealed his subsequent conviction on a conditional guilty plea by the Circuit Court of Prince William, Virginia, of driving while intoxicated, fourth offense (DUI), in violation of Va. Code Ann. §§ 18.2-266 and 18.2-270, following the denial of his motion to dismiss his indictment.
An issue of statutory interpretation is a pure question of law which the appellate court reviews de novo. When the language of a statute is unambiguous, the appellate court is bound by the plain meaning of that language. Furthermore, the appellate court must give effect to the Virginia legislature's intention as expressed by the language used unless a literal interpretation of the language would result in a manifest absurdity. If a statute is subject to more than one interpretation, the appellate court must apply the interpretation that will carry out the legislative intent behind the statute.
Under the plain and unambiguous terms of Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-294.1, one may not be "charged" and "convicted" of both driving under the influence (DUI) and reckless driving. A conviction of either DUI or reckless driving, whether in simultaneous or successive prosecutions, requires dismissal of the other charge if the other charge arose from the same act or acts.
10:26 PM | Posted by Atchuthan Sris | Edit Post
Defendant argued that the Prince William court erred in denying her proposed jury instruction that improper driving, an offense set forth in Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-869, was a lesser-included offense of reckless driving by speed. The appellate court disagreed. Improper driving was not a lesser-included offense of reckless driving by speed. Every commission of reckless driving by speed did not also constitute improper driving. In addition, improper driving was not composed entirely of the elements of reckless driving by speed. Improper driving required an additional finding of slight culpability, an element excluded from § 46.2-862. The plain and unambiguous reading of § 46.2-869 made clear that authority rested with the trial judge and not the jury to make the lesser degree of culpability determination. In the alternative, an attorney for the Commonwealth may have reduced a reckless driving charge to improper driving at any time before the court's decision. Thus, only the trial judge, or the prosecutor before the verdict was rendered, had the prerogative to reduce a reckless driving charge to improper driving under § 46.2-869.
Improper driving, Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-869, is not a lesser-included offense of reckless driving by speed, Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-862. Every commission of reckless driving by speed does not also constitute a commission of improper driving. In addition, improper driving is not composed entirely of the elements of reckless driving by speed. Improper driving requires an additional finding of slight culpability, an element excluded from the reckless driving by speed statute. The improper driving statute, Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-862, states that the court in its discretion may reduce the reckless driving charge to improper driving where the degree of culpability is slight.
10:25 PM | Posted by Atchuthan Sris | Edit Post
Defendant in Prince William was speeding, and he did not pull over when he was pursued by a police officer. Defendant was in an accident, and the officer asked him what caused it. Defendant admitted that he was speeding. Defendant was convicted of eluding the police. On appeal, defendant claimed that his statement was in violation of his Miranda rights and the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress. The court affirmed the conviction and held that defendant was not in custody at the time that he made his statement. The officer detained defendant as a necessary protective measure. Defendant was questioned as the driver of a vehicle involved in a traffic accident, not as a criminal suspect. Defendant was barred from arguing that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on reckless or improper driving because he did not ask for the instruction.
Reckless Driving In Virginia Lawyers Prince William Intoxicated
10:24 PM | Posted by Atchuthan Sris | Edit Post
Moose v. Commonwealth
The appellate court held that the blood alcohol level indicated in a PBT was conditionally relevant, subject to being augmented by evidence tending to show that the driver was driving in an intoxicated condition so as to endanger the life, limb or property of others in Prince William. No evidence established the significance of a PBT of 0.04 or whether a person driving with a 0.04 level might be intoxicated as evidence of reckless driving. The test result, alone, was inadmissible. The error was not harmless. The evidence of defendant's reckless driving was not overwhelming. The trooper acknowledged that he did not charge defendant with driving under the influence (DUI), but the Commonwealth emphasized defendant's consumption of alcohol. The jury could well have concluded that defendant, while not guilty of DUI, was driving recklessly because she had 0.04 alcohol in her system. If the Commonwealth sought to admit the PBT result on retrial, it had to show that a.04 result indicated that defendant was intoxicated such that her driving was dangerous to life, limb, or property of another, and defendant was entitled to an instruction on the statutory presumptions of blood alcohol concentration.
Lords v. Commonwealth
A jury in the Circuit Court of Prince William (Virginia) convicted defendant of reckless driving by speed, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-862. Defendant appealed.
Reckless Driving In Virginia Lawyers Prince William Eluding
10:19 PM | Posted by Atchuthan Sris | Edit Post