Lester v. Bennett
| Decision Date | 20 August 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 0018-84,0018-84 |
| Citation | 333 S.E.2d 366,1 Va.App. 47 |
| Parties | Michael Granville LESTER v. Mary Lagale O'Neal Lester BENNETT. Record |
| Court | Virginia Court of Appeals |
Roy David Warburton, for appellant.
Richard W. Davis, Radford, for appellee.
Michael Granville Lester contends in this appeal that he was immune from arrest and service of process in connection with an action brought by his former wife, Mary Lagale O'Neal Lester Bennett, in the Circuit Court of the City of Radford to collect delinquent child support payments. The arrest and service of process were made while Lester was in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court of Pulaski County seeking to obtain custody of their minor child.
Lester and Bennett were divorced May 9, 1975, by decree of the Circuit Court of the City of Radford. The decree awarded custody of the minor children to Bennett and granted leave to Bennett to proceed in the juvenile and domestic relations district court for a support order. On January 7, 1981, upon Bennett's petition, the circuit court reinstated the divorce suit on the docket and ordered Lester, whose last known address was in South Carolina, to pay $300 per month support for the minor children.
On October 4, 1984, the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court of Pulaski County issued a summons for Lester's appearance in connection with a proceeding instituted by Lester for the custody of his son, Michael G. Lester, Jr. The summons was issued at the suggestion of Lester's attorney and was to be served upon Lester, a Tennessee resident, by service upon his attorney.
On October 16, 1984, the circuit court entered an order directing the arrest of Lester and requiring him to show cause why he should not be imprisoned for contempt for failure to comply with the previous orders.
Upon Lester's arrival at the juvenile and domestic relations district court on October 22, 1984, for the custody hearing, he was served with the circuit court's show cause order and arrested. Hearing Lester's counsel by special appearance, the circuit court determined that it had jurisdiction to proceed, ruled that Lester was not immune from arrest and service of process, found him in contempt, and ordered him to commence support payments that day. This appeal ensued.
Lester relies upon Code §§ 8.01-327.2 and 19.2-280 for immunity from service of process and arrest. Code § 19.2-280, part of Virginia's version of the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from without a State in Criminal Proceedings, was enacted by the General Assembly to compel the attendance of nonresident witnesses in criminal proceedings. It provides that a person who comes into the state in obedience to a summons shall not, while in the state pursuant to the summons, be subject to arrest or service of process, civil or criminal, in connection with matters which arose before his entrance in response to the summons. Id.; Davis v. Hackney, 196 Va. 651, 654, 85 S.E.2d 245, 247 (1955). Non-resident witnesses could not be compelled to attend and testify in the criminal courts of this Commonwealth prior to the passage of the Uniform Act. Davis v. Hackney, 196 Va. at 654, 85 S.E.2d at 247.
Chapter 16, Article 2, which includes Code § 19.2-280, applies only to witnesses summoned in connection with a grand jury or a criminal action, prosecution, or proceeding. Lester was not in this state in obedience to a summons to attend and testify in a criminal proceeding; therefore, Code § 19.2-280 provides no basis upon which he may claim immunity from arrest or service of process.
The Uniform Act, however, did not supplant the common law but was enacted in furtherance of the common law. Davis v. Hackney, 196 Va. at 654, 85 S.E.2d at 247. Several early Virginia cases state that exemption from arrest and service of process on a person attending court is a common law privilege. Commonwealth v. Ronald, 8 Va. (4 Call) 97 (1786); Richards v. Goodson, 4 Va. (2 Va.Cas.) 381 (1823). The privilege was seen as extending to judges, attorneys, witnesses and the parties. Commonwealth v. Ronald, 8 Va. at 98. In Wheeler v. Flintoff, 156 Va. 923, 159 S.E. 112 (1931), the Supreme Court stated that the reason for the privilege is:
for the better protection of the courts in the administration of justice, and to prevent the intimidation of suitors, solicitors and witnesses, and the disturbance of officers of the court in the performance of their duties. It is primarily for the protection of courts, the privilege to the individual is merely incidental.
Code § 8.01-327.2, the other statutory provision upon which Lester relies for his claim of immunity, reads in pertinent part:
[T]he following persons shall not be arrested, apprehended, or detained under any civil process during the times respectively herein set forth, but shall not otherwise be privileged from service of process by this section:
* * *
* * *
(4) [A] witness, required by lawful authority to attend any court or place, during such attendance and while going to and from such court or place.
Code § 8.01-327.2 does not repudiate the common law rule,...
To continue reading
Request your trial