Court Opinion

ID: 9574852
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:08:58.704073+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:46:09.981320
License: Public Domain

POFF, J.,
dissenting.
I cannot endorse this opinion.
I agree that judgments cannot be based upon speculation, conjecture, surmise, or suspicion. But that is not to say that trial judges cannot base judgments on reasonable inferences drawn from proven facts. In my view, the evidence assembled by the commissioner in chancery and that heard by the chancellor, although wholly circumstantial, was fully sufficient to support the chancellor’s conclusion that the wife committed multiple acts of adultery with several paramours while she had custody of a young, impressionable child.
When we review criminal convictions, we consistently apply the rules that circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; that all conflicts in the evidence are resolved by the fact-finder; that the evidence and the reasonable inferences it raises are viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party; and that the trial court’s judgment is presumed to be correct and is not to be disturbed unless plainly wrong. Presumably, we would apply these rules reviewing a conviction for the crime of adultery. By what curious logic do we ignore them when we review findings of fact based upon conflicting evidence of adultery in a civil case where the standard of proof is lower?
*248I believe the rule in Haskins v. Haskins, 188 Va. 525, 50 S.E.2d 437 (1948), borrowed as it was from the editorial conclusions of two legal commentators, id. 188 Va. at 530-31, 50 S.E.2d at 439, is jurisprudentially flawed. Parenthetically, I confess error for having joined in an opinion which applied it. Painter v. Painter, 215 Va. 418, 211 S.E.2d 37 (1975). So long as we continue to impose the Haskins rule upon trial courts, an adulterous spouse will suffer no civil consequences, monetary or otherwise, unless the innocent spouse can produce a confession of one of the guilty participants or the testimony of an eyewitness.
I would overrule Haskins and its progeny and affirm the judgment below.