Pruitt v. Com.
2007 Va. LEXIS 109, 650 S.E.2d 684, 274 Va. 382 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To prove a violation of Virginia Code § 18.2-308(A) for carrying a concealed weapon 'about his person,' the weapon must be readily accessible for prompt and immediate use by the defendant, even if concealed in a vehicle compartment, but not if the defendant has exited the vehicle and the weapon is no longer immediately accessible.
Facts:
- On the morning of October 6, 2004, Joseph Clifton Pruitt was driving his 1995 Ford Thunderbird to work with a .357 caliber Sig-Sauer pistol on the front passenger seat for personal protection.
- Pruitt was involved in an automobile accident, causing his vehicle's airbags to deploy and the pistol to fall onto the floor, where it remained in full view.
- Believing his vehicle would be towed and suffering injuries to his knee, wrist, and head, Pruitt retrieved the pistol, placed it in the console compartment between the front seats, and immediately exited the vehicle, closing the doors and rolling up the windows.
- Officer Clark C. Gagnon of the Danville City Police arrived at the accident scene to investigate, finding Pruitt outside his vehicle.
- During an inventory search of Pruitt’s vehicle, Officer Gagnon opened the console compartment and discovered the pistol Pruitt had placed there.
Procedural Posture:
- The Commonwealth charged Joseph Clifton Pruitt with possession of a concealed weapon (second offense) in violation of Code § 18.2-308(A).
- The Circuit Court of the City of Danville held a bench trial on March 17, 2005, and convicted Pruitt, sentencing him to three years in prison, with the entire sentence suspended.
- Pruitt, as appellant, noted an appeal to the Court of Appeals of Virginia, which refused his petition for appeal by an unpublished order on May 24, 2006, citing Leith v. Commonwealth and Watson v. Commonwealth.
- Pruitt applied for a review by a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals of Virginia, which again refused the petition on August 11, 2006, for the reasons stated in its prior order.
- The Supreme Court of Virginia awarded Pruitt, as appellant, this appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does concealing a weapon in a vehicle's console compartment, immediately before exiting the vehicle, constitute carrying it 'about his person' under Virginia Code § 18.2-308(A) when the defendant is no longer in the vehicle?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Lawrence L. Koontz, Jr.
No, concealing a weapon in a vehicle's console compartment immediately before exiting the vehicle does not constitute carrying it 'about his person' under Virginia Code § 18.2-308(A) when the defendant is no longer in the vehicle. The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the conviction, holding that the phrase 'about his person' requires the weapon to be 'so connected with the person as to be readily accessible for use or surprise, if desired,' citing Sutherland v. Commonwealth. While recognizing that a weapon concealed in a vehicle compartment could, in some circumstances, be 'about his person' if the defendant remained in close proximity, as in Leith v. Commonwealth and Watson v. Commonwealth, the Court distinguished those cases. In Pruitt's case, he immediately exited the vehicle after placing the pistol in the console compartment. Once he was outside the vehicle and had closed the door, the pistol was no longer accessible to him for 'prompt and immediate use.' Therefore, the evidence was insufficient to establish that the pistol was 'about Pruitt’s person' as required by the statute, and the conviction was vacated.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the interpretation of 'about his person' within concealed weapon statutes, particularly concerning weapons found in vehicles. It establishes a critical distinction: mere concealment within a vehicle is not enough; there must be immediate and prompt accessibility to the person for the weapon to be considered 'about his person.' This ruling limits the scope of such charges, emphasizing that physical separation, even by a vehicle door, can negate the accessibility requirement. It provides a clearer legal boundary for individuals carrying weapons in their vehicles and for law enforcement in prosecuting such offenses, reinforcing that the intent of the law is to prevent immediate, surprise use of concealed weapons.
