Commonwealth v. Fisher

Fairfax County Circuit Court

Commonwealth v. Fisher

55 Va. Cir. 113, 2001 Va. Cir. LEXIS 57

CourtFairfax County Circuit Court

DecidedMarch 20, 2001

DocketCase No. K97264

StatusPublished

This text of 55 Va. Cir. 113 (Commonwealth v. Fisher) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Fairfax 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. Fisher, 55 Va. Cir. 113, 2001 Va. Cir. LEXIS 57 (Va. Super. Ct. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

By Judge Robert W. Wooldridge, Jr.

This matter comes before me on Defendant’s motion to introduce certain evidence in the event of and during any sentencing phase in this proceeding. The evidence Defendant seeks to introduce relates to prison conditions faced by inmates sentenced to life in prison without parole, and will be offered to rebut any claim by the Commonwealth of the Defendant’s future dangerousness to society.

It is clear from Cherrix v. Commonwealth, 257 Va. 292, 513 S.E.2d 642 (1999), that a defendant has no due process right to present such testimony at sentencing as a mitigation factor. Less clear from case law is a defendant’s right to offer such evidence to rebut an assertion by the Commonwealth of a defendant’s future dangerousness.

The Defendant’s motion to offer such evidence at any sentencing phase in this matter is granted, assuming that the Commonwealth intends to argue that the Defendant is a future danger. Mr. Petrovich may call Mr. Stan Young, Warden of the Virginia Department of Corrections’ Wallen Ridge facility, to testify.

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

By Judge Robert W. Wooldridge, Jr.

This matter comes before me on Defendant’s motion to introduce certain evidence in the event of and during any sentencing phase in this proceeding. The evidence Defendant seeks to introduce relates to prison conditions faced by inmates sentenced to life in prison without parole, and will be offered to rebut any claim by the Commonwealth of the Defendant’s future dangerousness to society.

It is clear from Cherrix v. Commonwealth, 257 Va. 292, 513 S.E.2d 642 (1999), that a defendant has no due process right to present such testimony at sentencing as a mitigation factor. Less clear from case law is a defendant’s right to offer such evidence to rebut an assertion by the Commonwealth of a defendant’s future dangerousness.

The Defendant’s motion to offer such evidence at any sentencing phase in this matter is granted, assuming that the Commonwealth intends to argue that the Defendant is a future danger. Mr. Petrovich may call Mr. Stan Young, Warden of the Virginia Department of Corrections’ Wallen Ridge facility, to testify.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 Va. Cir. 113, 2001 Va. Cir. LEXIS 57, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-fisher-vaccfairfax-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack