Commonwealth v. Diggs

Alexandria County Circuit Court

Commonwealth v. Diggs

19 Va. Cir. 121, 1990 Va. Cir. LEXIS 103

CourtAlexandria County Circuit Court

DecidedFebruary 14, 1990

DocketCase No. CF90019

StatusPublished

This text of 19 Va. Cir. 121 (Commonwealth v. Diggs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alexandria County Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Diggs, 19 Va. Cir. 121, 1990 Va. Cir. LEXIS 103 (Va. Super. Ct. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

By JUDGE ALFRED D. SWERSKY

Defendant has moved for discovery of the address where the "spotter" was posted when he observed the transaction which is the basis of the charge against the defendant. He relies on Rule 3A: 11(b)(2) which directs inspection of tangible objects, buildings, etc., "that are within the possession, custody, or control of the Commonwealth."

The Commonwealth asserts that the location is a private résidence and that assurances were given to the owner or occupier that the location would remain confidential. While the Commonwealth may not necessarily bind the Court if disclosure is required, the Court finds that the location is not a building within the possession, custody, and control of the Commonwealth and thus is not covered by Rule 3A:11.

Defendant also argues that due process of law requires disclosure to aid in the preparation of his defense. Since the officer who acted as spotter has sufficiently described his vantage point, disclosure of his exact location is not required by the Constitution.

The Motion of the defendant is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By JUDGE ALFRED D. SWERSKY

Defendant has moved for discovery of the address where the "spotter" was posted when he observed the transaction which is the basis of the charge against the defendant. He relies on Rule 3A: 11(b)(2) which directs inspection of tangible objects, buildings, etc., "that are within the possession, custody, or control of the Commonwealth."

The Commonwealth asserts that the location is a private résidence and that assurances were given to the owner or occupier that the location would remain confidential. While the Commonwealth may not necessarily bind the Court if disclosure is required, the Court finds that the location is not a building within the possession, custody, and control of the Commonwealth and thus is not covered by Rule 3A:11.

Defendant also argues that due process of law requires disclosure to aid in the preparation of his defense. Since the officer who acted as spotter has sufficiently described his vantage point, disclosure of his exact location is not required by the Constitution.

The Motion of the defendant is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 Va. Cir. 121, 1990 Va. Cir. LEXIS 103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-diggs-vaccalexandria-1990.