SD5 - Court Appearance Waiver

  • Published: 1989
  • Author: Virginia State Crime Commission
  • Enabling Authority: Senate Joint Resolution 56 (Regular Session, 1988)

Executive Summary:
The full Crime Commission met on October 18, 1988 and received the report of the subcommittee. After careful consideration, the findings and recommendations of the subcommittee were adopted by the Commission. The Crime Commission subcommittee studying court appearance waivers for motor vehicle accidents involving property damage pursuant to SJR 56 held three public meetings, including a public hearing held in conjunction with one of its meetings, conducted research, and received public comment on the issue. This section of the report provides a summary of the findings and recommendations of the subcommittee.

The subcommittee found that there are a substantial number of motor vehicle accidents in the Commonwealth that result in property damage and that a very high percentage of those accidents involve a traffic infraction. The subcommittee also found that general district court clerks and judges devote a substantial amount of time to such cases. Many defendants would prefer to prepay their fine and plead guilty and do not wish to appear for trial for a traffic offense. Indeed, a number of defendants, especially out-of-state defendants, do not appear for such cases and are tried in their absence.

Requiring court appearance can also cause great inconvenience to witnesses, especially when a continuance is granted or the defendant does not appear or appears only to plead guilty. It was not clear to the subcommittee, however, that court appearance waiver for property damage cases would substantially reduce that inconvenience. The subcommittee found that notifying witnesses was a more complicated issue than it might seem at first glance. Such notification would require an early determination that the defendant was eligible for court appearance waiver (i.e., that the accident did not result in personal injury) and the defendant would have to elect to waive court appearance in sufficient time before trial to notify the witnesses. In addition, there was no consensus on who should have the responsibility to notify the witnesses. Suggestions included the general district court clerk or the defendant, or that the witnesses themselves should be required to contact the clerk to determine if it was necessary for them to appear.

The subcommittee also found that there may be some reduction in time police officers must spend in court if court appearance waiver were permitted in property damage cases. Since, however, most police officers already take steps to reduce their time in court -- by, for example, scheduling all their traffic cases on one or more "court days" each week or month -- it was not clear to the subcommittee that the proposed court appearance waiver would substantially reduce the time police officers now spend in court.

The proposed court appearance waiver would be for traffic infraction cases where only property damage, but no personal injury, occurred. The subcommittee concluded that it will be very difficult in many cases to determine that no personal injuries occurred as a result of the accident since such injuries often are not known until some time after the accident.

The subcommittee believes that there is some deterrent effect associated with a required court appearance. Furthermore, a majority of the subcommittee believes that the proposed court appearance waiver could restrict the judge's sentencing discretion. Since the defendant no longer would be required to appear in court, the judge no longer would have the opportunity to determine if the defendant was in need of special training or special restrictions on his use of a motor vehicle.

The proposal also would have an impact on the victim of the defendant's traffic infraction. The victim no longer would have the opportunity to obtain information at the trial of the traffic infraction that could be used against the defendant in a later civil suit. In addition, even though a victim still may sue a defendant civilly, some victims feel strongly that they are entitled to have a "day in court" when the defendant is tried and, if found guilty, is required to answer publicly for the traffic infraction itself.

Finally, concern was expressed that the option of waiving court appearance and avoiding the inconvenience of spending a day in court might be sufficient to persuade a driver to waive appearance and plead guilty to a traffic infraction even when he has a valid defense. This could have a significant negative impact on the defendant in subsequent civil litigation. Based on the testimony and other information available to it, and on the above findings, the subcommittee recommends that § 19.2-254.1 of the Code of Virginia not be amended to permit court appearance waiver in traffic infraction cases that result in property damage but no personal injury.