Martin v. Ziherl
Decision Date | 14 January 2005 |
Docket Number | Record No. 040804. |
Citation | 269 Va. 35,607 S.E.2d 367 |
Parties | Muguet S. MARTIN v. Kristopher Joseph ZIHERL. |
Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Neil Kuchinsky, Colonial Heights; Melvin E. Yeamans, Jr., Richmond (Kuchinsky & Yeamans, Colonial Heights, on brief), for appellant.
Paul McCourt Curley (Robert Allen Canfield; Canfield, Baer, Heller & Johnston, Richmond, on brief), for appellee.
Amici Curiae: Commonwealth of Virginia (Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General; William E. Thro, State Solicitor General; Maureen Riley Matsen, Deputy State Solicitor General, on brief), in support of neither party.
Amici Curiae: American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, Inc. (Rebecca K. Glenberg; American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia Foundation, Inc., on brief), in support of appellant.
Present: All the Justices.
OPINION BY Justice ELIZABETH B. LACY.
In this appeal we consider whether Zysk v. Zysk, 239 Va. 32, 404 S.E.2d 721 (1990), which disallows tort recovery for injuries suffered while participating in an illegal activity, precludes Muguet S. Martin from maintaining a tort action against Kristopher Joseph Ziherl for injuries allegedly inflicted during sexual intercourse, a criminal act of fornication proscribed by Code § 18.2-344, in light of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 123 S.Ct. 2472, 156 L.Ed.2d 508 (2003), holding unconstitutional a Texas penal statute prohibiting certain sexual acts.
FACTS
Because the case was decided on demurrer, we recite the facts contained in the pleadings and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. McDermott v. Reynolds, 260 Va. 98, 100, 530 S.E.2d 902, 903 (2000). Martin and Ziherl were unmarried adults in a sexually active relationship from approximately October 31, 2001 through November 3, 2003. Martin experienced a vaginal outbreak in June 2003, which her physician diagnosed as herpes. Martin filed a motion for judgment against Ziherl alleging that he knew he was infected with the sexually transmitted herpes virus when he and Martin were engaged in unprotected sexual conduct, knew that the virus was contagious, and failed to inform Martin of his condition. In the two-count motion for judgment, Martin asserted claims of negligence, intentional battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress and sought compensatory and punitive damages.
Ziherl filed a demurrer asserting that Martin's injuries were caused by her participation in an illegal act and therefore, under Zysk, the motion for judgment did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Following a hearing, the trial court applied Zysk and sustained Ziherl's demurrer holding that Lawrence did not "strike down" Code § 18.2-344 and that valid reasons such as the protection of public health and encouraging marriage for the procreation of children are "rationally related to achieve the objective of the statute." We awarded Martin an appeal.
DISCUSSION
Before turning to the merits of Martin's appeal, we consider Ziherl's assertion that Martin lacks "standing" to challenge the constitutionality of Code § 18.2-344. In making his "standing" argument, Ziherl refers to the lack of real or threatened prosecution of Martin under Code § 18.2-344 and states that invalidation of the statute would not impact her liberty interest but, instead, would only allow her to maintain her action for damages. Regardless of the approach, well established law precludes us from considering Ziherl's "standing" challenge.
A basic principle of appellate review is that, with few exceptions not relevant here, arguments made for the first time on appeal will not be considered. Ziherl did not assert before the trial court that Martin lacked "standing" to challenge the constitutionality of Code § 18.2-344. We have repeatedly held that challenges to a litigant's standing must be raised at the trial level, and the failure to do so precludes consideration of a litigant's standing by this Court on appeal. In Walt Robbins, Inc. v. Damon Corp., 232 Va. 43, 348 S.E.2d 223 (1986), the Court considered whether the appellee's mechanics' lien was unenforceable for failure to make the trustees and the beneficiary of the antecedent deed of trust parties to the suit to enforce the lien. Id. at 46, 348 S.E.2d at 225. On appeal, the appellee challenged the "appellants' standing to assert the rights of the trustees and beneficiary," but the Court refused to consider this argument, finding that it had been waived for failure to preserve it in the lower court. Id. at 46 n. 2, 348 S.E.2d at 226 n. 2. The Court concluded that "a standing question cannot be raised for the first time on appeal." Id.; see also Princess Anne Hills Civic League v. Susan Constant Real Estate Trust, 243 Va. 53, 59 n. 1, 413 S.E.2d 599, 603 n. 1 (1992)
( ); Shenandoah Pub. House, Inc. v. Fanning, 235 Va. 253, 258 n. 1, 368 S.E.2d 253, 255 n. 1 (1988) ( ); Andrews v. Cahoon, 196 Va. 790, 805, 86 S.E.2d 173, 181 (1955) ( ); Crawley v. Glaze, 117 Va. 274, 277, 84 S.E. 671, 673 (1915) ( ).
While we will not entertain a standing challenge made for the first time on appeal, the Court will consider, sua sponte, whether a decision would be an advisory opinion because the Court does not have the power to render a judgment that is only advisory. See Commonwealth v. Harley, 256 Va. 216, 219-20, 504 S.E.2d 852, 854 (1998)
. In the case at bar, the Court's decision on the constitutionality of Code § 18.2-344 will determine Martin's right to pursue her tort claim for damages. Thus, we find that this case presents a justiciable issue and a decision by this Court will not be an advisory opinion.
Martin asserts that the reasoning of the Supreme Court of the United States in Lawrence renders Virginia's statute criminalizing the sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons, Code § 18.2-344, unconstitutional. The issue in Lawrence, as stated by the Court, was "whether the petitioners were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution." Id. at 564. Lawrence had been convicted of violating a Texas statute that made it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct described as the act of sodomy. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.06(a) (2003). Lawrence challenged his conviction in the Texas courts, asserting that the Texas statute was unconstitutional, but the Texas court rejected that challenge, relying on Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 106 S.Ct. 2841, 92 L.Ed.2d 140 (1986). Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 563, 123 S.Ct. 2472. In Bowers, the Supreme Court had held that a Georgia statute making it a crime to engage in sodomy, regardless of the sex of the participants, was constitutional. 478 U.S. at 189, 106 S.Ct. 2841.
Acknowledging that the Texas court properly considered Bowers as "then being authoritative," Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 563, 123 S.Ct. 2472, the Supreme Court reexamined its prior decision and concluded that "Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and is not correct today." Id. at 578, 123 S.Ct. 2472. The Court explained that the liberty interest at issue was not a fundamental right to engage in certain conduct but was the right to enter and maintain a personal relationship without governmental interference. Id. at 567, 123 S.Ct. 2472. The Court determined that the statutes proscribing certain acts between persons of the same sex sought to control a personal relationship that is "within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals." Id. The Court explained that the constitution protects the liberty interests of persons to maintain a personal relationship "in the confines of their homes and their own private lives" and that an element of that relationship is its "overt expression in intimate conduct." Id. at 567, 123 S.Ct. 2472. In overruling Bowers, the Court also stated that the analysis of Justice Stevens in his dissenting opinion in Bowers should have been applied in that case and "should control" in Lawrence. Id. at 578, 123 S.Ct. 2472. That analysis is:
Our prior cases make two propositions abundantly clear. First, the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack. Second, individual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons.
Id. at 577-78, 123 S.Ct. 2472. Applying Justice Stevens' analysis, the Court stated, Id. at 578, 123 S.Ct. 2472.
We find no relevant distinction...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tyler v. Commonwealth
...receive compensation." Zysk v. Zysk , 239 Va. 32, 34-35, 404 S.E.2d 721 (1990), overruled on other grounds , Martin v. Ziherl , 269 Va. 35, 43, 607 S.E.2d 367 (2005).While the law firm would not have incurred the VSB costs but for Tyler's embezzlement, those costs were also caused by its ow......
-
Lowe v. Swanson, No. 5:08 CV 686.
...2007); Ex parte Morales, 212 S.W.3d 483, 493 (Tex.App.2006); State v. Limon, 280 Kan. 275, 122 P.3d 22, 29 (2005); Martin v. Ziherl, 269 Va. 35, 607 S.E.2d 367, 370 (2005); State v. Clinkenbeard, 130 Wash.App. 552, 123 P.3d 872, 878 Cook v. Gates, 528 F.3d at 51 n. 5. The First Circuit itse......
-
Toghill v. Commonwealth
...noncommercial sexual conduct without intervention of the government. 539 U.S. at 578, 123 S.Ct. 2472.We noted in Martin v. Ziherl, 269 Va. 35, 42, 607 S.E.2d 367, 370–71 (2005), that the Virginia statute criminalizing intercourse between unmarried persons improperly abridged a personal rela......
-
Ghameshlouy v. Com.
...a public place, for this Court to rule on the issue would represent an impermissible advisory opinion. See Martin v. Ziherl, 269 Va. 35, 40, 607 S.E.2d 367, 369 (2005) (declaring that "the Court does not have the power to render a judgment that is only advisory"); Commonwealth v. Harley, 25......
-
Dealing with Dead Crimes
...one state court of last resort has applied the same rationale to strike down a dead crime prohibiting fornication. See Martin v. Ziherl, 607 S.E.2d 367, 370–71 (Va. 2005) (applying Lawrence ). 2022] DEALING WITH DEAD CRIMES 113 Supreme Court has dealt with dead crimes in the absence of a do......
-
Redefining due process analysis: Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and the concept of emergent rights.
...Clause.'"); State v. Jenkins, No. C-040111, B-0105517-A, 2004 WL 3015091, at *3 (Ohio Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2004); and Martin v. Ziherl, 607 S.E.2d 367, 370 (Va. 2005). For cases that include Lawrence within citations of precedent establishing fundamental rights, see Hudson Valley Black Press v......
-
Table of Cases
...160, 244, 357, 365, 430, 554, 561-62, 587, 592 Martin v. Texas, 200 U.S. 316, 26 S.Ct. 338, 50 L.Ed. 497 (1906), 1151 Martin v. Ziherl, 607 S.E.2d 367 (Va. 2005), 1281 Martinez-Fuerte, United States v., 428 U.S. 543, 96 S.Ct. 3074, 49 L.Ed.2d 1116 (1976), 1006-07 MaryCLE, LLC v. First Choic......
-
Kim Shayo Buchanan, Lawrence v. Geduldig: Regulating Women's Sexuality
...e.g., State v. Whiteley, 616 S.E.2d 576 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005); Berg v. State, 100 P.3d 261, 264 (Utah Ct. App. 2004); Martin v. Ziherl, 607 S.E.2d 367 (Va. 2005). 276 Federal military appellate courts have repeatedly upheld military bans on sodomy and adultery in the face of Lawrence due pro......