Source: http://lynchburgvirginiaduilawyer.com/tag/lynchburg-virginia/
Timestamp: 2013-06-19 07:43:12
Document Index: 334713275

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 18', '§ 8', '§ 18', '§ 18', '§ 16', '§ 18']

Lynchburg VirginiaLynchburg Virginia DUI Defense Law Lawyers Attorneys
Lynchburg Virginia	DUI Virginia Lynchburg Attorney Suspended License Refusing Blood Test	DUI Virginia Lynchburg Attorney Suspended License Refusing Blood Test
In a driving under influence (DUI)case, the Defendant was found guilty by a magistrate of unreasonably refusing to take a blood or breath alcohol test, and his driver’s license was suspended. He appealed to the trial court, which sustained his motion to strike because it found that the magistrate could only charge such a violation by use of a warrant. The commonwealth sought review from the court of appeals (Virginia), which held that it did not have jurisdiction.
If you are facing a traffic case in Lynchburg, Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747
DUI Virginia Lynchburg Attorney Suspended License Refusing Blood Test
Proceedings charging unreasonable refusal to submit to testing are administrative and civil, and not criminal, in nature. Municipalities have been permitted to appeal adverse decisions of such charges under municipal ordinances paralleling the state statute. The procedure for appeal and trial of unreasonable refusal cases shall be the same as provided for misdemeanors. Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268(V).
Unlawful refusal charges continue to be administrative and civil in nature and, for that reason, the commonwealth can appeal an adverse decision.
The substantive right of appeal is one granted by statute. Substantive rights are included within that part of the law dealing with creation of duties, rights, and obligations, as opposed to procedural or remedial law, which prescribes methods of obtaining redress or enforcement of rights. Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-670 authorizes an appeal to Virginia Supreme Court by any person aggrieved by a final judgment in any other civil case.
Lynchburg House Detail:
P. O. Box 4, 900 Court Street,
Lynchburg, VA 24505-0004.
905 Court Street,
Lynchburg, VA 24504.
909 Court Street, Main Level,
Lynchburg, VA 24504-1603.
Posted in Virginia DUI Attorneys | Tagged 888 437, Blood Test, Breath Alcohol Test, Dui Attorney, Dui Virginia, Fredericksburg, Law Group, Loudoun Virginia, Lynchburg Virginia, Magistrate, Misdemeanors, Municipal Ordinances, Necessary Experience, Prince William, Substantive Right, Substantive Rights, Traffic Case, Trial Court, Virginia Court, William Richmond	Virginia Lynchburg Traffic Lawyer Criminal Accident Case	Virginia Lynchburg Traffic Lawyer Criminal Accident Case
In a traffic accident case, the Defendant appealed from a conviction in the Circuit Court of Lynchburg (Virginia) of aggravated involuntary manslaughter.
Virginia Lynchburg Traffic Lawyer Criminal Accident Case
A reviewing court’s responsibility in reviewing jury instructions is to see that the law has been clearly stated and that the instructions cover all issues which the evidence fairly raises. The purpose of an instruction is to furnish guidance to the jury in their deliberations, and to aid them in arriving at a proper verdict, so far as it is competent for the court to assist them. The chief object contemplated in the charge of the judge is to explain the law of the case, to point out the essentials to be proved on the one side or the other, and to bring into view the relation of the particular evidence adduced to the particular issues involved. In his instructions the trial judge should inform the jury as to the law of the case applicable to the facts in such a manner that they may not be misled.
Each party is entitled to have jury instructions upon vital points in language chosen by it, if the instruction is a correct statement of the law. When a principle of law is vital to a defendant in a criminal case, a trial court has an affirmative duty properly to instruct a jury about the matter. It is error not to instruct the jury on a point at issue when the jury may make findings based upon a mistaken belief of the law.
Posted in Virginia DUI Attorneys | Tagged 888 437, Accident Case, Affirmative Duty, Case Caption, Chief Object, Criminal Case, Deliberations, Involuntary Manslaughter, Jury Instructions, Law Group, Loudoun Virginia, Lynchburg Virginia, Necessary Experience, Prince William, Traffic Accident, Traffic Case, Traffic Lawyer, Trial Judge, Virginia Court, William Richmond	Virginia Lynchburg DUI Lawyer Habitual Offender Driving Alcohol	Virginia Lynchburg DUI Lawyer Habitual Offender Driving Alcohol
Defendant sought review of his convictions in the Circuit Court of the Lynchburg (Virginia), for operating a motor vehicle after having been adjudicated a habitual offender and of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI).
Virginia Lynchburg DUI Lawyer Habitual Offender Driving Alcohol
Both subsections of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-266 proscribe a single act–”driving under the influence of an intoxicant.” Va. Code § 18.2-266 defines a single offense, commonly referred to as DUI, and the subsections merely set forth the means by which the offense of driving under the influence may be proved..
Under Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-126, the circuit court shall have jurisdiction to try any person for any misdemeanor for which a presentment or indictment is brought in or for which an information is filed..
Posted in Virginia DUI Attorneys | Tagged 888 437, Driving Under The Influence, Driving Under The Influence Of Alcohol, Dui Lawyer, Fredericksburg, Habitual Offender, Indictment, Law Group, Loudoun Virginia, Lynchburg Virginia, Misdemeanor, Necessary Experience, Presentment, Prince William, Traffic Case, Virginia Beach, Virginia Court, Virginia Lawyer, Virginia Lawyers, William Richmond	Driving Influence Lynchburg Virginia Attorney DUI Evidence Statute	Driving Influence Lynchburg Virginia Attorney DUI Evidence Statute
Edward v. Commonwealth
Defendant and the State submitted arguments against and for conviction in the prosecution of defendant on the charge of driving under the influence (DUI) that was brought subsequent to his conviction for manslaughter arising from the same facts under which the DUI charge was being prosecuted.
Driving Influence Lynchburg Virginia Attorney DUI Evidence Statute
The prohibition of the ancient principle of the common law and the constitutional provisions declaratory thereof, against a second jeopardy, apply only to a second prosecution for the identical act and crime both in law and fact for which the first prosecution was instituted. In determining whether both indictments charge the same offense the test generally applied is that when the facts necessary to convict on the second prosecution would necessarily have convicted on the first, a final judgment on the first prosecution will be a bar to the second, but if the facts which will convict on the second prosecution would not necessarily have convicted on the first, then the first will not be a bar to the second, although the offenses charged may have been committed by the same state of facts.
The test of the identity of the acts or offenses is whether the same evidence is required to sustain them; if not, then the fact that several charges grow out of the one transaction does not make a single act or offense where two separate acts or offenses are defined by statute.
The offense of driving while under the influence is not similar to the crime of manslaughter, neither is it a lessor included offense. The two crimes are entirely separate in fact, as well as in contemplation of the law of Virginia.
Posted in Virginia DUI Attorneys | Tagged 888 437, Ancient Principle, Common Law, Constitutional Provisions, Defendant, Driving Under The Influence, Dui Charge, Edward V, Final Judgment, Indictments, Jeopardy, Law Group, Lessor, Lynchburg Virginia, Manslaughter, Prohibition, Prosecution, Traffic Case, Virginia Attorney, Virginia Court	DUI Lynchburg Virginia Lawyer Breath Test Code 18.2-268.9	In Lynchburg City, where a defendant arrested for DUI was afforded an opportunity to view the results of his breath test, the requirements of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268.9 were substantially met, strict compliance was unnecessary, and the DUI statutes nowhere provided for a suppression remedy for procedural violations.
DUI Lynchburg Virginia Lawyer
Posted in Attorneys | Tagged Arrested For Dui, Authoritative Content, Breath Test, Defendant, Dui Lawyer, Fairfax County, Fredericksburg, Law Group, Lawy, Lynchburg City, Lynchburg Virginia, Prince William, Procedural Violations, Richmond Virginia, Strict Compliance, Test Code, Unofficial Views, Virginia Beach, Virginia Lawyer, Virginia Lawyers, William Richmond	DUI Lynchburg Virginia Lawyer Blood Breath Test	Because, under Virginia DUI law, if appellant could show that he was physically unable to take a breath test, then police were required to give a blood test, trial court erred in excluding evidence about why appellant did not take breath test in Lynchburg City.
Posted in Attorneys | Tagged Authoritative Content, Blood Test, Breath Test, Caption, Dui Lawyer, Fairfax County, Fredericksburg, Law Group, Lynchburg City, Lynchburg Virginia, Prince William, Richmond Virginia, Test Trial, Trial Court, Unofficial Views, Virginia Beach, Virginia Dui Law, Virginia Lawyer, Virginia Lawyers, William Richmond	DUI Lynchburg Virginia Lawyer Breath Blood Test	In Lynchburg City, defendant, who was charged with driving under the influence, was not properly held guilty of unreasonably refusing to take a breath test in violation of the implied consent law where the Commonwealth did not explain why a blood test was unavailable.
Posted in Attorneys | Tagged Authoritative Content, Blood Test, Breath Test, Commonwealth, Defendant, Driving Under The Influence, Dui Lawyer, Fairfax County, Fredericksburg, Implied Consent Law, Law Group, Lynchburg City, Lynchburg Virginia, Prince William, Richmond Virginia, Unofficial Views, Virginia Beach, Virginia Lawyer, Virginia Lawyers, William Richmond	DUI Lynchburg Virginia Lawyer Blood Test	A breath test was admissible at defendant’s DUI trial because the Commonwealth of Virginia proved that an after-hours blood test was reasonably unavailable at the time of her arrest given that only one field deputy officer was on duty for Lynchburg City.
Posted in Attorneys | Tagged Authoritative Content, Blood Test, Breath Test, Commonwealth Of Virginia, Defendant, Dui Law, Dui Lawyer, Dui Trial, Fairfax County, Field Deputy, Fredericksburg, Law Group, Lynchburg City, Lynchburg Virginia, Prince William, Richmond Virginia, Unofficial Views, Virginia Beach, Virginia Lawyer, Virginia Lawyers, William Richmond	Driving Under Influence Lynchburg Virginia Lawyer Arrest Blood Alcohol Test	In Lynchburg city, defendant was found not guilty where a blood alcohol test showed no alcohol and defendant refused to take another test. The clean test negated probable cause for defendant’s arrest for driving under the influence.
Driving Under Influence Lynchburg Virginia Lawyer
Posted in Attorneys | Tagged Amp, Authoritative Content, Blood Alcohol Test, Defendant, Driving Under The Influence, Dui Lawyer, Fairfax County, Fredericksburg, Law Group, Lynchburg City, Lynchburg Virginia, Prince William, Probable Cause, Richmond, Richmond Virginia, Unofficial Views, Virginia Beach, Virginia Lawyer, Virginia Lawyers, William Richmond	DUI Lynchburg Virginia Lawyer Prosecution Child Abuse Neglect	Enhanced penalty contained within the DUI statute, assessed against an accused when he drove under the influence with a passenger 17 years old or younger, did not prohibit a prosecution for felony child abuse and neglect in Lynchburg City.
Posted in Attorneys | Tagged 17 Years, Abuse And Neglect, Authoritative Content, Child Abuse And Neglect, Child Abuse Neglect, Child Neglect, Dui Law, Dui Lawyer, Fairfax County, Felony Child Abuse, Fredericksburg, Law Group, Lynchburg City, Lynchburg Virginia, Prince William, Richmond Virginia, Unofficial Views, Virginia Lawyer, Virginia Lawyers, William Richmond	Lynchburg Virginia DUI