Summary
The Supreme Court of Virginia held that the Commonwealth failed to establish that nine robberies and related offenses constituted a common scheme or plan under Virginia Rules 3A:6(b) and 3A:10(c). Because the offenses were improperly joined for a single trial, the court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment affirming the convictions and remanded for new trials if the Commonwealth elected to proceed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by joining the charged offenses for a single trial under Rules 3A:6(b) and 3A:10(c).
- Whether the charged offenses constituted parts of a common scheme or plan under Rule 3A:6(b).
Holdings
- When a defendant does not consent to a single trial of multiple offenses, the Commonwealth must establish both that the offenses satisfy Rule 3A:6(b) and that justice does not require separate trials.
- A common scheme involves crimes sharing idiosyncratic features that permit an inference that the offenses were committed by the same person or persons as part of a pattern of criminal activity.
- The Commonwealth failed to establish that Scott's offenses constituted parts of a common scheme or plan under Rule 3A:6(b); therefore, joinder for a single trial was improper.
Key quotations
“The term "common scheme" describes crimes that share features idiosyncratic in character, which permit an inference that each individual offense was committed by the same person or persons as part of a pattern of criminal activity involving certain identified crimes.” (636)
“Accordingly, we hold that because the Commonwealth failed to establish that the offenses pending against Scott constituted parts of a "common scheme or plan," within the meaning of Rule 3A:6(b), the Court of Appeals erred in approving the circuit court's discretionary decision ordering a single trial under the provisions of Rule 3A:10(c).” (636)
Factual background
Scott was charged with nine robberies and related offenses committed against different victims at various locations in Virginia Beach between February and June 2003. The offenses generally involved a lone Black male displaying a gun and demanding money, credit cards, or PINs from individuals outside homes or vehicles during evening hours. Several victims identified Scott, while others could not; the jury convicted Scott of numerous offenses and acquitted him of several others.
Procedural history
Scott was indicted in the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach for nine robberies and related offenses arising from incidents involving different victims over approximately four months. The circuit court granted the Commonwealth's motion to join the offenses for one trial, and the jury convicted Scott of numerous charges. The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed, holding that the offenses had sufficiently similar characteristics to constitute a common scheme and that separate trials were not required. The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed and remanded for new trials if the Commonwealth elected to proceed.
Remand instructions
Reverse the Court of Appeals' judgment and remand to that court with direction to remand the case to the circuit court for new trials if the Commonwealth so advised.