Barrett v. Com.
| Decision Date | 02 November 2001 |
| Docket Number | Record No. 010686. |
| Citation | 553 S.E.2d 731,262 Va. 823 |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | Calvin Lee BARRETT, v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. |
Stephen C. Harris, Louisa, for appellant.
Paul C. Galanides, Assistant Attorney General (Randolph A. Beales, Attorney General; Richard B. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Present CARRICO, C.J., LACY, HASSELL, KEENAN, KOONTZ, and LEMONS, JJ., and WHITING, Senior Justice.
Opinion by Senior Justice HENRY H. WHITING.
In this appeal, we review a trial court's denial of a defendant's motion to strike a prospective juror for cause. The prospective juror's brother, a police officer, was a witness for the Commonwealth in a case involving two consolidated criminal charges.
Calvin Lee Barrett, the defendant, was operating an automobile in the City of Charlottesville with an expired license tag and a broken left rear tail light lens when his vehicle was observed and stopped by Virginia State Trooper Joseph S. Fleming. As soon as the defendant stopped his vehicle, he walked away from it, ignoring the trooper's order to stop. The trooper was only able to stop the defendant by following him on foot and seizing his arm. As the trooper was escorting the defendant to the police cruiser, the defendant broke away from the trooper. In an escalating series of struggles, the trooper was unsuccessful in his attempt to seize and arrest the defendant who finally reentered his vehicle and sat in the driver's seat.
The trooper reached in the driver's side window and seized the defendant with one hand. While the trooper's arm was extended into the vehicle, the defendant backed his vehicle into the trooper's cruiser and then started driving forward. Fearing that he would be killed or seriously injured if the defendant continued to drive forward, the trooper shot the defendant with his revolver, which he had drawn during the previous struggles. The defendant was charged with operating his vehicle after he had been declared an habitual offender, second offense, and an assault and battery upon Fleming, a police officer while in the performance of his duty. During voir dire examination of prospective jurors, defense counsel questioned prospective juror James Wade concerning Wade's possible bias in weighing potentially conflicting testimony of the defendant and police officers. The defendant was particularly concerned with the expected testimony of the prospective juror's brother, Charles Wade, a police officer. Relevant portions of the questions and answers follow:
Responding to further questions variously posed by the court, the Commonwealth's Attorney, and defense counsel, prospective juror Wade testified: (1) that he would not hesitate to put aside his relationship with his brother and his acquaintance with other police officers in judging the credibility or believability of their testimony; (2) that he would not favor, or show partiality toward his brother's testimony over that of the defendant or defense witnesses; (3) that he did not think that he would have a tendency to believe his brother's testimony over that of somebody else he did not know or over the testimony of a non-police officer; and (4) that he would not show any partiality in favor of his brother's testimony.
Because defendant's motion to strike James Wade for cause was denied, he exercised his preemptory right to strike Wade from the panel. During the jury trial that followed, Charles Wade testified that when he arrived at the scene shortly after the defendant was shot, he saw the trooper seated in a police vehicle and the defendant lying on the ground. He also testified that he assisted in securing the crime scene.
After the jury heard all the evidence, it found the defendant guilty of both charges and recommended confinement in the penitentiary for a period of five years on the habitual offender charge and three years on the charge of assaulting a police officer. The court imposed the recommended sentences.
In the defendant's appeal to the Court of Appeals, he alleged that the trial court erred in failing to strike prospective juror Wade for cause. A panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court in an unpublished opinion. Barrett v. Commonwealth, Record No. 1829-99-2, 2000 WL...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roberts v. Csx Transp., Inc.
...there has been manifest error amounting to an abuse of discretion.'" Id. at 329-30, 619 S.E.2d at 73 (quoting Barrett v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 823, 826, 553 S.E.2d 731, 732 (2001)); accord Cantrell v. Crews, 259 Va. 47, 50, 523 S.E.2d 502, 504 "Parties to litigation are entitled to a fair a......
-
Goodwin v. Commonwealth
...to an abuse of discretion." Lovos-Rivas v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 55, 61, 707 S.E.2d 27 (2011) (quoting Barrett v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 823, 826, 553 S.E.2d 731 (2001) ).The appellant challenges the trial court’s findings that Jurors 15, 23, 125, and 11 could be impartial.8 The holdings......
-
Keepers v. Commonwealth
...been manifest error amounting to an abuse of discretion.’ " Townsend, 270 Va. at 329-30, 619 S.E.2d 71 (quoting Barrett v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 823, 826, 553 S.E.2d 731 (2001) ). "A manifest error occurs when the record shows that a prospective juror cannot or will not lay aside his or her......
-
Brown v. Com. of Va.
...there has been manifest error amounting to an abuse of discretion.’ " Id. at 62, 707 S.E.2d at 30 (quoting Barrett v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 823, 826, 553 S.E.2d 731, 732 (2001) ). In assessing juror impartiality, this Court considers the voir dire in its entirety, not merely a challenged ju......