Using Radar Defense With Lidar Smyth Virginia

Using Radar Calibration Defense With Lidar – Virginia Lawyers

If you are dealing with a Lidar based charge in Virginia, contact our law firm immediately for help.

Using Radar Calibration Defense With Lidar In Virginia.

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Using Radar Defense With Lidar Smyth Lawyers Virginia Felony Motor Vehicle

Michael v. Commonwealth

Facts:

Appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Smyth (Virginia) that entered judgment in favor of appellee in an action alleging that after appellant had been judged a habitual offender, he drove in such a manner as to endanger the life, limb, or property of another, a violation of Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-357(B)(2). With no proof as to whether the officer has caught the Appellant, using radar (Lidar), the Appellant took the defense that there was no evidence in the record as to appellant’s actually driving.

If you are facing a criminal case in Smyth, Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:
  • The reviewing court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the party prevailing below, granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom
  • Under Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-357(B)(2) any person found to be an habitual offender under this article, who is thereafter convicted of driving a motor vehicle while the revocation determination is in effect shall be guilty of a felony if such driving of itself endangers the life, limb, or property of another or takes place while such person is in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-266, irrespective of whether the driving of itself endangers the life, limb or property of another and one of the offender’s underlying convictions is for Va. Code Ann. §§ 18.2-36.1, 18.2-266 or a parallel local ordinance
  • The reviewing court will not reverse the judgment of the trial court unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.

Using Radar Calibration Defense With Lidar In Virginia.

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Article written by A Sris
Sris Law Group
1-434-509-4004

Dismissal Smyth Virginia Speeding Ticket

Seeking Dismissal Of A Virginia Speeding Ticket – Virginia Lawyers

If you are seeking Dismissal Of A Virginia Speeding Ticket, contact our law firm immediately for help.

Dismissal Of A Virginia Speeding Ticket – Attorneys

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Warner v. Commonwealth

Facts:

The Commonwealth charged defendant with speeding under Smyth County, Va., Code § 82-4-10, which tracked the language of and substance of the comparable Virginia Code Annotated provisions. Defendant stipulated the Commonwealth’s evidence was sufficient to convict him, but moved to dismiss the § 82-4-10 charge because he was not provided an immediate hearing upon his request pursuant to Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-936. Section 46.2-936 provided that a person issued a summons for a violation of the traffic code which was punishable as a misdemeanor had a right to an immediate hearing. Defendant requested such a hearing by noting it on the Virginia Uniform Summons of which both he and the officer had copies. However, the speeding infraction was not punishable as a misdemeanor, and, even if it had been, the remedy for violation of the rights under § 46.2-936 would not have been dismissal of the charge.
If you are facing a traffic case in Smyth, Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:
  • A person issued a summons for a violation of the traffic code which is punishable as a misdemeanor has a right to an immediate hearing. Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-936. The remedy for violation of the rights under § 46.2-936 is not dismissal of the charge..
  • Constitutional violations may well require dismissal of the charges for violations. However, Virginia law has consistently held that exclusion or dismissal is not the remedy for violations of statutory rights.

Dismissal Of A Virginia Speeding Ticket – Attorneys

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Article written by A Sris
Sris Law Group
1-434-509-4004

Traffic Lawyer Smyth Virginia

Traffic Lawyer – Virginia

If you are concerned about a Traffic Case in Virginia, contact our law firm immediately for help.

Traffic Case – Virginia Attorneys

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Walter v. Commonwealth

Facts:

Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Smyth County (Virginia), defendant was convicted of a third or subsequent traffic offense of driving on a suspended or revoked license and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and sentenced to five years for unauthorized use and 12 months for driving while suspended. Defendant appealed.

If you are facing a traffic case in Smyth, Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:
  • Evidence of other crimes may be admissible if introduced to prove an element of the offense charged, or to prove any number of relevant facts, such as motive, intent, agency, or knowledge. Other crimes evidence may also be admissible when the charged crime is part of a general scheme and proof of that fact is relevant to prove an element of the offense, or to prove or explain how the crime was accomplished.
  • It is well settled that evidence of other crimes or bad acts of an accused is generally inadmissible in a criminal prosecution. The purpose of this rule is to prevent confusion of offenses, unfair surprise to the defendant and a suggestion of criminal propensity, thus preserving the presumption of innocence.
  • A nonconstitutional error is harmless if it plainly appears from the record and the evidence given at trial that the error did not affect the verdict. An error does not affect a verdict if a reviewing court can conclude, without usurping the jury’s fact finding function, that had the error not occurred, the verdict would have been the same.

Traffic Case – Virginia Attorneys

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Article written by A Sris
Sris Law Group
1-434-509-4004

Smyth Virginia Hit Run Property Damage Charge

Virginia Hit And Run Property Damage Charge – Virginia Lawyers

If you are concerned about a Virginia Hit And Run Property Damage Charge, contact our law firm immediately for help.

Virginia Hit And Run Property Damage Charge – Virginia Attorneys

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Walter v. Commonwealth

Facts:

The driver sued by the passengers pled guilty to felony hit and run. The contribution statute, Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-34, was in derogation of the common law and had to be strictly construed. Assuming, without deciding, that felony hit and run, under Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-894, was a crime involving moral turpitude, the actions of the driver which raised his conduct to one involving moral turpitude occurred after the vehicles collided, and the passengers were injured and also caused damage to the property. Rather than finding that all of the driver’s actions, from driving to leaving the scene, were one continuous course of conduct, it was better to let the trier of fact decide if the driver’s conduct involved moral turpitude. The driver did not have to be at fault in causing the accident to be guilty of hit and run.

If you are facing a criminal case in Smyth, Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:
  • A person does not have to be at fault in causing an accident to be guilty of hit and run. The moral turpitude in hit and run, excluding contribution under Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-34, is mutually exclusive from a defendant’s allegedly negligent driving that resulted in the accident.
  • It is clear that under Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-34 contribution lies when the negligence of two or more wrongdoers (joint tortfeasors) cause an indivisible injury to one person. Contribution is available when the wrong results from negligence and involves no moral turpitude.

Virginia Hit And Run Property Damage Charge – Virginia Attorneys

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Article written by A Sris
Sris Law Group
1-434-509-4004

Smyth Virginia State Law 46.2 862

State Law 46.2 862 Charge – Virginia Lawyers

If you are dealing with a State Law 46.2 862 charge in Virginia, contact our law firm immediately for help.

State Law 46.2 862 defense in Virginia

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Commonwealth v. Smith

Facts:

Defendant appealed her conviction by the Circuit Court of Smyth (Virginia) of reckless driving by speeding 70 miles per hour in a 45 miles-per-hour zone in Virginia State under Virginia Code Ann. § 46.2-862, following the denial of her motion to strike the evidence obtained by pacing to prove her speed, alleging that pacing as per law was not a method for determining speed listed in Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-882.

If you are facing a traffic case in Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:
  • Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-882 is a statute permitting the admissibility of evidence. It is not a statute of exclusion. It sanctions four types of scientific evidence that determine speed by eliminating the need to prove that the underlying scientific principle or technique of the measuring device is reliable.
  • Nothing in Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-882 suggests it is meant to limit the means for proving speed. The statute itself states that speed “may” be determined by the enumerated means. “The word “may” is prima facie permissive, importing discretion, but the courts construe it to be mandatory when it is necessary to accomplish the manifest purpose of the Virginia legislature. Even lay witness testimony has always been an acceptable method of the speed of a car. The statute does not prevent the Commonwealth from proving a vehicle’s speed by other methods.
  • One of the easiest methods of proving a vehicle’s speed is by pacing. This involves accurately determining the speed of one vehicle while proceeding at a constant distance from a second vehicle. If the distance between the two vehicles remains constant, the speed of the second vehicle must be the same as the known speed of the first vehicle. Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-942 clearly contemplates the use of pacing as a method of determining a vehicle’s speed by authorizing the admission of calibration tests to prove the accuracy of an arresting officer’s speedometer.

State Law 46.2 862 defense in Virginia

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Article written by A Sris
Sris Law Group
1-434-509-4004

Police Prove Passed School Bus Smyth Virginia

How would the Police Prove I Passed A School Bus – Virginia Lawyers

If you are concerned about How would the Police Prove I Passed A School Bus In Virginia, contact our law firm immediately for help.

How would the Police Prove I Passed A School Bus – Attorneys In Virginia

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Kenith v. Commonwealth

Facts:

Appellant challenged his conviction of involuntary manslaughter in the operation of a motor vehicle in violation of Va. Code Ann. §§ 18.2-30, 18.2-36, entered in the Circuit Court of Smyth (Virginia), claiming the evidence was insufficient to convict him of the offense for which he had been detained by the police. The Commonwealth was able to prove that if the appellant’s attention were not diverted, he would have seen the school bus signs and flashing lights before he passed it. Judgment affirmed.

If you are facing a criminal case in Smyth, Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:
  • When considering the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. The judgment of a trial court will be disturbed only if plainly wrong or without evidence to support it
  • Criminal negligence is the basis for involuntary manslaughter and has been defined as acting consciously in disregard of another person’s rights or acting with reckless indifference to the consequences, with the defendant aware, from his knowledge of existing circumstances and conditions, that his conduct probably would cause injury to another.
  • A defendant accused of criminal negligence must have had prior knowledge of specific conditions that would likely cause injury to others.

How would the Police Prove I Passed A School Bus – Attorneys In Virginia

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Article written by A Sris
Sris Law Group
1-434-509-4004

Smyth Virginia 46.2-862

46.2-862 Charge Of Reckless Driving – Virginia Lawyers

If you are dealing with a 46.2-862 Charge Of Reckless Driving in Virginia, contact our law firm immediately for help.

46.2-862 Charge Of Reckless Driving defense in Virginia

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

James Peter v. Commonwealth

Facts:

Defendant was charged with driving under the influence of intoxicants and with speeding 55 miles per hour in a 25 mile per hour zone. Both charges grew out of the same driving activity. Defendant prepaid the speeding charge and claimed that Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-862 converted his speeding charge to a reckless driving charge. Defendant alleged that he was convicted of speeding by virtue of this payment of the fines and costs and therefore he could not be prosecuted for the driving under the influence charge because Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-294.1 prevented dual convictions of driving under the influence and reckless driving. On review, the court disagreed holding that defendant’s argument required that he be charged with and convicted of reckless driving. The court stated that speeding was a traffic infraction and reckless driving was a misdemeanor. In addition, the court determined that § 19.2-294.1 only applied if defendant was charged with driving under the influence and reckless driving. The court held that where the evidence supported prosecution under two parallel statutes, the Commonwealth had the right to elect under which statute to proceed.

If you are facing a traffic case in Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:

  • Under Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-69.40:1, it is not possible for a defendant to prepay the fine for a reckless driving charge as it is expressly forbidden by Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-69.40:1(d).
  • Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-294 states that if a defendant is charged with driving under the influence of intoxicants and with reckless driving and he is convicted of one of those charges, then the court shall dismiss the remaining charge. The purpose of § 19.2-294 is to prevent the conviction of two different class one misdemeanors arising out of the same driving acts, when one of the misdemeanors is driving under the influence of intoxicants and the other is reckless driving. Where the evidence supports prosecution under either of two parallel statutes, the Commonwealth has the right to elect under which statute to proceed.

46.2-862 Charge Of Reckless Driving defense in Virginia

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Article written by A Sris
Sris Law Group
1-434-509-4004