Speeding Stafford Virginia Lawyer Calibration Certificate Vehicle Accuracy
Speeding Stafford Virginia Lawyer Calibration Certificate Vehicle Accuracy
Commonwealth v. Frazer
Facts:
Defendant filed a motion to strike a certificate of calibration of a police vehicle, and objected to the absence of a certificate of calibration of the radar unit in the prosecution of him for speeding.
Speeding Stafford Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the proof of the accuracy of a speedometer was sufficiently established?
Discussions:
Radar used in the arrest was a unit attached to the officer’s motorcycle and he testified that the radar was checked by tuning fork and against the speedometer of his motorcycle. He also testified that the radar was operating accurately under such tests. Defendant objected to the manner in which the accuracy of the radar was determined, citing noncompliance with Va. Code Ann. § 46.1-198(a1). The court overruled the motion and found defendant guilty of speeding. The court held that § 46.1-198(a1) was not applicable because there could not have been a hearsay objection to the testimony of the officer since he was the only one involved in the accuracy test. The court ruled that the use of a calibration certificate to show the accuracy of the speedometer in the vehicle used by a police officer or a defendant was permitted under Va. Code Ann. § 46.1-193.1. The court determined that the proof of the accuracy of a speedometer was sufficiently established by showing it was checked against a calibrated master speedometer and that it was done. The court concluded that the Commonwealth established the accuracy of the type radar used by the tuning fork and the motorcycle speedometer.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your traffic ticket. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your traffic ticket.
A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your traffic ticket in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Reckless Driving Westmoreland Virginia Lawyer License
Reckless Driving Westmoreland Virginia Lawyer License
Lawrence v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Appellee driver’s operator’s and chauffeur’s license was suspended by appellant, the Commissioner of the Division of Motor Vehicles. The Circuit Court for Westmoreland County (Virginia) reversed and annulled the Commissioner’s order, and the Commissioner appealed.
Reckless Driving Westmoreland Virginia Lawyer
ISSUES:
Whether the circuit court properly reversed and annulled an order of the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles under authority of Va. Code § 46-420 (1950), which suspended for 30 days the driver’s operator’s and chauffeur’s licenses.
DISCUSSION:
Abstracts of all previous convictions introduced in evidence show that X was tried and convicted for the various offenses alleged to have been committed in the previous years. Several witnesses, neighbors and associates of X, including a deputy sheriff of Westmoreland county, all of whom had observed his operation of automobiles over a period of years, testified without objection that in their opinion X was now a careful and competent driver. The testimony of some of these witnesses indicated that they would not have considered him a careful driver several years ago, but they said he had improved and they did consider him a careful driver as of the date of their testimony. Evidence fails to sustain the charge that appellee was habitually a reckless or negligent driver of a motor vehicle. However, satisfactory proof of a single ‘serious violation’ may warrant a suspension or revocation. Thus the ultimate question presented is whether or not a fair appraisal of the record shows that X “committed a serious violation of the motor laws of this State” or “by reckless or unlawful operation of a motor vehicle. The offense of reckless driving (speeding 75 to 80 miles per hour) committed in 1952 to which X pleaded guilty is remote in point of time, but it was a “serious violation of the motor vehicle laws.” His offense of crossing the center line of the highway and striking another vehicle, inflicting several hundred dollars damage to the two cars, was committed on June 13, 1954, and is clearly of like character. Failure to observe the stop sign, standing alone, might not be sufficient to meet the requirements of item (5) of § 46-420 and constitute a “serious violation of the motor vehicle laws”, but here what was done meets the requirements of item (1) of § 46-420, for it constitutes the “unlawful operation of a motor vehicle” which “caused or contributed to an accident resulting in serious property damage.” Proof of the latter two violations justified suspension of X’s licenses. The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the Commissioner’s order of August 3, 1955, which suspended X’s operator’s and Y’s licenses for thirty days is re-instated and restored to full force and effect.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your traffic ticket. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your traffic ticket.
A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your traffic ticket in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Reckless Driving Fairfax Virginia Lawyer Driving Endanger Life
Reckless Driving Fairfax Virginia Lawyer Driving Endanger Life
Williams v. Commonwealth
Facts:
The Circuit Court of Amherst County, Virginia, convicted defendant of reckless driving. Defendant contended that the evidence was not sufficient to prove his driving endangered the life, limb or property of any person, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-852 and appealed.
Reckless Driving Fairfax Virginia Lawyer
ISSUES:
The issue here is whether the Defendant has preserved his right to appeal on the issue of insufficiency of evidence.
DISCUSSION:
Where an issue of sufficiency of evidence is presented to a trial court, sitting without a jury, in a motion to strike at the conclusion of the Commonwealth’s evidence and, upon its denial and upon conclusion of the defendant’s evidence, the same issue is presented in the defendant’s final argument to the court, the defendant has preserved his right to appeal this issue, even though he did not make a motion to strike at the conclusion of his own evidence. On appeal, a ruling of a trial court will not be reversed unless an objection is stated “together with the grounds therefor at the time of the ruling, except for good cause shown or to enable the Court of Appeals to attain the ends of justice. If appellant’s closing argument alerts the trial court to the grounds on which he bases his argument, Rule 5A:18 is satisfied. The phrase, “credibility of the witnesses,” does not preserve the issue presented. Taken in the context of his closing argument, appellant appeared to address the credibility of the witnesses on the issue of whether Flood Road was a “highway,” not their credibility on other elements of the crime. Appellant did not alert the trial court that he was arguing the Commonwealth failed to prove the elements of the offense of reckless driving. The trial court was not adequately advised of appellant’s position. As appellant did not raise the issue of recklessness, the trial court could not consider his specific argument nor could the trial court take corrective action. Sufficiency issue raised by appellant on appeal is procedurally defaulted under Rule 5A:18.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your traffic ticket. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your traffic ticket.
A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your traffic ticket in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Speeding Virginia Testimony Trooper Accuracy Hearsay Evidence Lawyers Salem City
Speeding Virginia Testimony Trooper Accuracy Hearsay Evidence Lawyers Salem City
RODGERS V. COMMONWEALTH
Facts:
Rodgers was convicted of violating the speed limit on the testimony of Trooper B of the State Police, sole witness for the Commonwealth. The officer testified that he and the Trooper on the day in question set up the radar equipment following standard procedure: each drove his car through a zone at stated speeds while the other observed and checked the radar reading and that as thus checked the machine was working accurately when Rodgers’s speed was shown. But Trooper’s testimony as to the radar readings observed in the test by Trooper was hearsay, and defendant’s objection to it on that ground should have been sustained. The judgment of conviction was reversed because of this error.
Speeding Virginia Testimony Trooper Accuracy Hearsay Evidence Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the testimony of Trooper B concerning that part of the radar accuracy test performed by Trooper D constitutes hearsay evidence?
Discussion:
The trooper B testified about the accuracy of the radar. The Commonwealth asked the trooper if the radar was found to be accurate by another trooper B. Defendant’s counsel objected to the question in that it called for hearsay evidence. Defense counsel suggested that the trooper D should testify as to what speeds he drove his cruiser through the zone of operation and what speeds he read on the radar meter when defendant’s car was driven through the radar zone.
In Royals v. Commonwealth (1957), 198 Va. 883, 96 S.E.2d 816, the conviction of speeding on the ground was reversed that the trooper testifying on behalf of the Commonwealth as to the accuracy of the radar machine said that he understood the machine had been properly tested but that he had no firsthand or actual knowledge of the test. In that case it was said “This testimony is not based on the personal knowledge of the witnesses and is clearly hearsay or mere deductions drawn by them. A person accused of violating a criminal law is entitled to be confronted by his accusers, and he cannot be lawfully convicted on hearsay evidence or inferences deduced by witnesses.”
The trial court in ruling that such testimony was admissible treated the accuracy test as one operation thereby obviating the necessity for both troopers involved to testify. If one officer can testify not only as to the readings he personally made but also as to the readings that a second officer observed out of his presence, this would obviously have the effect of the officer surmising that such test for accuracy was carried out, thus violating the rule laid down in the second Royals case, supra.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your traffic ticket. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your traffic ticket. A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your traffic ticket in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Reckless Driving Virginia Traffic Ticket Alcosensor Breath Test Lawyers Roanoke County
Reckless Driving Virginia Traffic Ticket Alcosensor Breath Test Lawyers Roanoke County
NICHOLS BATA V. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Facts:
Defendant sought review of the judgment of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, which convicted him of Reckless Driving under the influence of alcohol. Defendant contended that the trial court erred by allowing the Commonwealth to introduce evidence of the results of a preliminary alcosensor breath test.
Reckless Driving Virginia Traffic Ticket Alcosensor Breath Test Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the trial court erred by permitting the Commonwealth to introduce evidence of the results of a preliminary alcosensor breath test?
Discussion:
The court finds that at trial, the Commonwealth introduced into evidence a certificate of refusal signed by Nichols. Nichols testified that he refused the test because he had performed well on the field test. To rebut that testimony the Commonwealth was permitted to introduce over Nichols’ objection the results of the preliminary alcosensor field test which showed a blood alcohol concentration of 0.15% present. The Commonwealth specifically proffered the results, and the trial court limited their admission, to rebut Nichols’ testimony regarding the reason for refusing to submit to a blood or breath test. Although alcosensor results are otherwise inadmissible, Nichols opened the door for such admission by testifying that he had performed “fine” on the field test, thereby urging the court to find that he had acted reasonably. Since the evidence was admitted for the limited purpose to rebut Nichols’ claim that he had done “fine” on the test and thus that his refusal was reasonable, and not to prove that he drove under the influence, the trial court properly admitted the evidence and did not consider it for an improper purpose.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your traffic ticket. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your traffic ticket. A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your traffic ticket in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
8:00 AM – 12:00 AM Midnight
Former State Trooper
