Opinion ID: 1235265
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: The commissioner in chancery, who heard all the evidence in the case except that presented during the ore tenus hearing before the trial court on January 19, 1979, concluded that the wife was not guilty of marital misconduct and was therefore not guilty of adultery. The additional evidence heard by the court only involved the course of conduct with the attorney who had originally represented the husband and was allowed to withdraw from the case by decree of the court within six months after the litigation was commenced. The trial court rejected the conclusions of the commissioner and adjudged that the wife's infidelity had been proven. In First National Bank of Martinsville, etc. v. Cobler, 215 Va. 852, 854, 213 S.E.2d 800, 802 (1975), we said: Our standard of review under these circumstances should be kept clearly in mind, as the facts are considered .... The chancellor has disapproved the report of the commissioner in chancery, therefore, we must review the evidence and ascertain whether, under a correct application of the law, the evidence supports the findings of the commissioner or the conclusions of the trial court. [Citations omitted.] Cf. Higgins v. Higgins, 205 Va. 324, 328, 136 S.E.2d 793, 796 (1964). Earlier, in Colbert v. Colbert, 162 Va. 393, 400, 174 S.E. 660, 662 (1934), we stated these basic guidelines: To establish the charge of adultery the evidence must be full and satisfactory  the judicial mind must be convinced affirmatively. The proof should be strict, satisfactory and conclusive. [Citations omitted.] The testimony of a hired detective, in cases of this nature, should be carefully scrutinized and acted on with great caution.... Later, in Haskins v. Haskins, 188 Va. 525, 530-31, 50 S.E.2d 437, 439 (1948), we quoted with approval: A charge of adultery is one of a criminal offense and especially and uniquely damaging to the reputation of the party charged. The general and widely recognized presumption of innocence must be indulged against it, and, while it is not required to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, as in a criminal proceeding, the evidence must be at least clear and positive and convincing. Raising a considerable or even strong suspicion of guilt is not enough. [Citation omitted.] Both of these holdings were reiterated more recently in Painter v. Painter, 215 Va. 418, 420, 211 S.E.2d 37, 38 (1975). While we agree that the behavior of the wife in the case at hand, when read in connection with all other evidence in the record, creates suspicion as to her guilt on the specific dates in issue, we do not believe the evidence amounts to clear, positive and convincing proof. It creates grave suspicion as to the intimacy .... Yet when measured by the rules of human conduct and experience as of this day and time, it is not inconsistent with freedom from actual guilt. Haskins, 188 Va. at 531, 50 S.E.2d at 440. We therefore hold that the trial court erred in its finding of adultery on the part of the wife as the evidence was insufficient to support the conclusion.