Summary
The published opinion addresses Jaeyoung Lee’s appeal from convictions in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County for aggravated malicious wounding, wiretapping, possession of burglary tools, firearm use in the commission of a felony, personal trespass by computer, and computer invasion of privacy. The Court of Appeals of Virginia held that admitting Lee’s notebook violated the attorney-client privilege but concluded that the error was harmless; the excerpt also addresses judicial reassignment, admission of Lee’s refusal to provide a DNA sample, and the related jury instruction.
Court
Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction
Virginia Court of Appeals
Decision date
January 13, 2026
Docket number
0547-24-4
Disposition
affirmed
Questions Presented
- Whether admission of Lee's notebook violated the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine.
- If admission of the notebook violated the attorney-client privilege, whether the error was harmless.
- Whether Code § 19.2-154 permitted a different circuit judge to preside over post-trial motions and sentencing after the judge who presided over trial became available for some judicial duties.
- Whether reassignment of post-trial and sentencing proceedings violated Lee's due-process rights or his right to be sentenced by the judge who presided over trial.
- Whether evidence of Lee's initial refusal to comply with a DNA search warrant was relevant and admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt.
- Whether the trial court properly instructed the jury that Lee's failure to comply with the search warrant created no presumption of guilt but could be considered with the other evidence.
Holdings
- The notebook was protected by the attorney-client privilege because it was created after Lee retained Ellis, concerned the subject matter of Ellis's representation, and was prepared with the intention of securing legal advice on its contents.
- Although admission of the notebook violated Lee's attorney-client privilege, the error was harmless because the notebook had only a slight effect in the context of the entire trial and the circumstantial evidence of guilt was overwhelming.
- Code § 19.2-154 permitted Judge Bellows to preside over Lee's post-trial motions and sentencing after certifying that he had familiarized himself with the trial record; the statute did not require reinstatement of the original trial judge when that judge later resumed some judicial duties.
- Lee had no constitutional due-process right to have post-trial motions or sentencing conducted by the judge who presided over his jury trial, so reassignment to Judge Bellows did not violate due process.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence that Lee initially refused to comply with the DNA search warrant because the refusal had at least a slight logical tendency to establish consciousness of guilt.
- The trial court properly instructed the jury that Lee's failure to comply with the DNA search warrant created no presumption of guilt but could be considered with the other evidence.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…