Latest Updates
from the Supreme Court of Virginia
Calling all personal injury and criminal defense attorneys: The Supreme Court has managed to stay busy despite a rocky start to 2025 here in Richmond.
We have three cases and a published order on our docket that you will want to pay attention to.
Civil Cases:
Trying any cases in the future involving an alleged failure to maintain a lookout? Look no further (pun intended) than Al-Saray v. Sharon Furr.
The Court of Appeals initially reversed a $7,000,000 verdict for the plaintiff following a car crash, faulting the plaintiff for failing to prove specific facts leading up to the crash. The CAV believed that the jury’s determination of proximate cause must have been based on speculation, but our Supreme Court found that the CAV’s analysis was wrong. The opinion has some good quotes about deference to the fact-finder and how appellate courts must view facts in the light most favorable to the prevailing party at trial. Worth a read!
Next up is Boyette v. Sprouse. Here, the Supreme Court approved the use of a “sudden emergency” doctrine jury instruction.
Plan on driving anytime soon? Want to increase your anxiety levels? Read this case, which involves a dark and windy road, blinding headlights, cars stopping suddenly, and a dog running into the road.
The SCV’s Order summarily affirms the CAV’s decision that the instruction was warranted, so be sure to take a look at it here.
Criminal & Habeas Corpus:
Criminal defense colleagues, I have not forgotten you: The Supreme Court issued two decisions last week that you should take note of.
The first concerns the deference we must give to fact-finders in decisions involving motions to withdraw guilty pleas. The Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Tanya Holland, written by Justice Mann, reads as a bit of an apology for the Court’s decision to uphold the trial court’s denial. Read this case if you have a motion to withdraw a guilty plea pending or you want to bolster your form language about the abuse of discretion standard (when you are the appellee).
Lastly, we have a published habeas corpus opinion in Cridler-Smith v. Clarke, which we rarely get. The SCV usually issues unpublished orders in this arena, so this is noteworthy.
One of the issues concerned Va. Sup. Ct. R. 3A:8, which provides: “statements made in connection with and relevant to any of the foregoing pleas or offers, is not admissible in the case-in-chief in any civil or criminal proceeding against the person who made the plea or offer.”
The case involved the defendant “cooperating” to secure a better plea agreement…but, as you probably guessed, this did not go according to plan. Trial counsel did not object to the Commonwealth’s use of defendant’s admissions at his trial—admissions made in the context of cooperating to try and obtain a favorable plea agreement.
The SCV determined that it was objectively unreasonable for trial counsel not to even attempt to exclude these harmful admissions. Justice Russell’s decision has some helpful quotes for our post-conviction relief attorneys in response to some of the Director’s common arguments. Ultimately, the SCV sent the matter back to the Circuit Court to determine whether these statements qualified under Rule 3A:8, and thus the Circuit Court will decide whether the habeas petitioner ultimately gets relief.
As always, give me a call if you have questions or want to chat about these. Until next time–
Appellate Tip of the Day
File a reply brief.
That’s it–that’s the tip. Don’t let your opponent have the last word.
You’re going to ask, “but what if their opening brief is meritless?” And my answer is the same.
Consider your audience: The appellate court’s law clerks may be writing the first draft of the opinion and may not know everything that you do. Provide all of the information that law clerk or judge needs to write the decision you want.
If your goal is to make it easy for the court to rule in your favor, file the reply brief.
