Commonwealth v. Minnick

Loudoun County Circuit Court

Commonwealth v. Minnick

17 Va. Cir. 35, 1988 Va. Cir. LEXIS 308

CourtLoudoun County Circuit Court

DecidedOctober 19, 1988

DocketCase No. (Law) 9983

StatusPublished

This text of 17 Va. Cir. 35 (Commonwealth v. Minnick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Loudoun 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. Minnick, 17 Va. Cir. 35, 1988 Va. Cir. LEXIS 308 (Va. Super. Ct. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

By JUDGE THOMAS D. HORNE

The Court believes the instant case to be distinguishable from Shinault v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 269 (1984), upon which Defendant in part relies on his contention that the Indiana conviction should not be considered by the Court. Pursuant to the provision of § 46.1-387.2(c), the Court may consider those offenses of "another state" substantially conforming to those of the Commonwealth. While under the Indiana statute, a BAC of .10% or more constitutes prima facie evidence of intoxication and the Virginia statute makes reference to a presumption (Section 18.2-269, Code of Virginia, as amended) which is rebuttable, such a distinction does not make the two substantially nonconforming. Likewise, the Court does not believe the other reasons cited by the Defendant mandate a contrary result.

Accordingly, the Commonwealth may prepare an order finding the Defendant to be a habitual offender as set forth in Section 46.1-387.2 pursuant to Section 46.1-387.6, Code of Virginia, as amended, in the usual form to which the Defendant may note his exception.

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

By JUDGE THOMAS D. HORNE

The Court believes the instant case to be distinguishable from Shinault v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 269 (1984), upon which Defendant in part relies on his contention that the Indiana conviction should not be considered by the Court. Pursuant to the provision of § 46.1-387.2(c), the Court may consider those offenses of "another state" substantially conforming to those of the Commonwealth. While under the Indiana statute, a BAC of .10% or more constitutes prima facie evidence of intoxication and the Virginia statute makes reference to a presumption (Section 18.2-269, Code of Virginia, as amended) which is rebuttable, such a distinction does not make the two substantially nonconforming. Likewise, the Court does not believe the other reasons cited by the Defendant mandate a contrary result.

Accordingly, the Commonwealth may prepare an order finding the Defendant to be a habitual offender as set forth in Section 46.1-387.2 pursuant to Section 46.1-387.6, Code of Virginia, as amended, in the usual form to which the Defendant may note his exception.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 Va. Cir. 35, 1988 Va. Cir. LEXIS 308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-minnick-vaccloudoun-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack