Title: Lambert v. Commonwealth
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 190439
State: Virginia
Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court
Date: April 9, 2020

Present:  Goodwyn, Mims, Powell, Kelsey, McCullough, and Chafin, JJ., and Russell, S.J. 
 
CLINARD GARY LAMBERT 
                                                                                                  OPINION BY 
v.  Record No. 190439                                       SENIOR JUSTICE CHARLES S. RUSSELL 
                                                                                                 APRIL 9, 2020 
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 
 
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 
 
 
This appeal arises from convictions for aggravated involuntary manslaughter in violation 
of Code § 18.2-36.1 and driving while intoxicated in violation of Code § 18.2-266.  It presents 
questions whether the Commonwealth presented evidence sufficient to support jury verdicts 
finding that the defendant had self-administered intoxicants that impaired his ability to drive 
safely.  For the reasons explained below, we conclude that the evidence before the jury, and the 
inferences reasonably deducible therefrom, was sufficient to support a finding beyond a 
reasonable doubt that Lambert had, prior to the accident, self-administered drugs that impaired 
his ability to drive safely.  Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. 
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS 
 
In accordance with familiar principles of appellate review, the facts will be stated in the 
light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party at trial.  On March 1, 2015, 
Donna Turner was driving her Chevrolet Cavalier eastbound, crossing “Big A” Mountain in 
Russell County.  She was accompanied, in the front passenger seat, by Forrest Ramey.  At the 
same time, the defendant, Clinard Gary Lambert, was driving a pickup truck westbound, 
approaching her on the same road.  The defendant crossed the centerline, entered the eastbound 
lane and continued until he collided with the guardrail to his left.  He scraped along the guardrail 
for about forty feet before coming to a stop. 
 
Donna Turner, coming around a curve, saw the truck ahead, swerved to her left to avoid 
it, but was unable to avert a collision.  She suffered injuries but the main force of the impact was 
2 
 
to the passenger side of her car.  Forrest Ramey, her passenger, later died as a result of the blunt 
force injuries he sustained. 
 
Several witnesses soon appeared at the scene.  Claude Musick was driving eastbound 
ahead of the Turner Chevrolet.  He heard the crash behind him.  In his rear-view mirror, he saw 
Lambert’s truck against the guardrail, headed in the wrong direction.  He turned around, returned 
to the scene and called 911. 
 
Next, an eastbound car driven by Tammy Brown, with Andrew Duncan as her passenger, 
arrived at the scene.  They had been too far behind to see the accident but stopped to give 
assistance.  Duncan assisted Lambert in climbing out of his truck on its passenger side.  Donna 
Turner remained in her car, trying unsuccessfully to revive Ramey.  Lambert stood beside the 
truck and appeared to be “dazed” and “wobbly on his feet.”  His face was bleeding profusely.  
He was not seen to eat, drink, or take any medication. 
 
Greta Morrison, an Emergency Medical Technician and a nursing supervisor at the 
Russell County Medical Center, responded to the scene.  Treating Lambert for his facial injuries, 
she noted that his speech was slurred but that he was oriented and could answer questions.  She 
suspected that “there was more to” the slurred speech than just this apparent facial trauma.  
When she asked him whether he had taken any drugs or alcohol, he denied that he had.  She 
suggested to a police officer who had arrived at the scene that a blood sample should be taken 
from Lambert.  No medications were given to Lambert at the scene or during his subsequent 
transportation to the hospital by emergency personnel. 
Two Virginia State Troopers responded to the scene.  Lambert told Trooper Osborne that 
he had been driving his truck but did not know what had happened.  He appeared sleepy and was 
leaning on the guardrail for support but denied consuming any drugs or alcohol.  Upon being 
3 
 
asked a second time, however, Lambert admitted that he had just come back from the local 
methadone treatment center where he received a “treatment of methadone.” 
 
Lambert was transported to the Holston Valley Hospital in Kingsport, Tennessee.  The 
police obtained a search warrant for a sample of his blood for analysis.  The resulting certificate 
of analysis confirmed the presence of methadone and drugs commonly known as Valium and 
Xanax in Lambert’s blood. 
 
Lambert was indicted in the Circuit Court of Russell County for aggravated involuntary 
manslaughter and driving while intoxicated.  The case proceeded to a jury trial.  The 
Commonwealth presented evidence to support the facts outlined above.  In addition, Dr. James 
Kuhlman, Jr., a forensic toxicologist, testified that the levels of methadone and Xanax in 
Lambert’s blood were “significant,” had depressant effects that could be “additive” and “very 
dangerous” in combination, causing drowsiness, dizziness, lethargy, slowed hand-eye 
coordination, slurred speech and altered balance.  He concluded that the drug levels in Lambert’s 
blood were sufficient to have impaired his ability to drive safely. 
 
At the close of the Commonwealth’s evidence, Lambert moved to strike it on the ground, 
among others, that the Commonwealth had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the 
drugs in Lambert’s blood were self-administered.  The trial court denied the motion then and 
again when it was renewed at the conclusion of the trial.  The jury found Lambert guilty on both 
charges and sentenced him to seven years’ incarceration on the charge of aggravated involuntary 
manslaughter and a fine of $1,500 on the charge of driving while intoxicated.  The court entered 
final judgment in accordance with the jury verdicts. 
 
Lambert appealed his convictions to the Court of Appeals, which granted and considered 
his assignments of error.  In a published opinion, Lambert v. Commonwealth, 70 Va. App. 54 
(2019), the Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions.  We awarded Lambert an appeal limited 
4 
 
to three assignments of error relating solely to the question whether the drugs found in Lambert’s 
blood had been self-administered. 
ANALYSIS 
 
The statutes under which Lambert was charged provide, in pertinent part, as follows: 
It shall be unlawful for any person to drive or operate any motor vehicle . . . (iii) 
while such person is under the influence of any narcotic drug or any other self-
administered intoxicant or drug of whatsoever nature, or any combination of such drugs, 
to a degree which impairs his ability to drive or operate any motor vehicle . . . safely. 
 
Code § 18.2-266. 
 
Any person who, as a result of driving under the influence in violation of clause 
(ii), (iii), or (iv) of § 18.2-266 . . . unintentionally causes the death of another person, 
shall be guilty of involuntary manslaughter. 
 
Code § 18.2-36.1(A). 
 
 
Lambert contended in the Court of Appeals that our decision in Jackson v. 
Commonwealth, 274 Va. 630 (2007), precludes a finding that the drugs found in his blood were 
“self-administered.”  The Court of Appeals determined that Jackson was inapposite, and we 
agree.  Jackson was a case devoted entirely to statutory construction.  There, we construed Code 
§ 18.3-266 to require the Commonwealth to prove self-administration as an element of the crime, 
regardless of the intoxicating substance involved.  Jackson, 274 Va. at 634.  There, the 
Commonwealth contended that the phrase “any narcotic drug” in Code § 18.2-266 made proof of 
self-administration unnecessary.  Id. at 633-34.  We disagreed and reversed the conviction.  Id. at 
634-35.  The present case, by contrast, presents only a question of the sufficiency of the evidence 
to prove self-administration. 
 
On appeal, an appellate court is required to consider the evidence and all inferences fairly 
deducible from it in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party at trial. 
Perry v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 572, 578 (2010).  The relevant issue on appeal is, “upon 
5 
 
review of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier 
of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”  Pijor v. 
Commonwealth, 294 Va. 502, 512 (2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). 
 
The evidence concerning the presence of intoxicants in Lambert’s blood, sufficient to 
impair his ability to drive safely, was undisputed.  When separately asked by Nurse Morrison 
and Trooper Osborne whether he had taken any drugs or alcohol, he initially denied that he had 
done so.  Later, he admitted to the trooper that he had just received methadone at a methadone 
treatment clinic. The trial court held, and the Court of Appeals agreed, that the methadone 
treatment clinic was a part of a voluntary program and that Lambert had agreed to ingest 
methadone by his voluntary participation in the program.  There was no evidence as to how the 
other drugs had found their way into Lambert’s blood, but the jury was entitled to draw the 
inference that he had initially lied about consuming any drugs out of his consciousness of guilt 
and a desire to conceal it. See Jones v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 52, 57-58 (2010). 
CONCLUSION 
 
We conclude that the evidence before the jury, and the inferences reasonably deducible 
therefrom, was sufficient to support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Lambert had, prior 
to the accident, self-administered drugs that impaired his ability to drive safely.  Accordingly, we 
will affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. 
Affirmed.