Watson v. Commonwealth
435 S.E.2d 428, 10 Va. Law Rep. 338, 17 Va. App. 124 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A weapon is considered carried "about his person" for purposes of a concealed weapon statute if it is so connected with the person as to be readily accessible for prompt and immediate use, even if some noticeable body motion is required for retrieval.
Facts:
- On July 20, 1991, Officer Lucas of the Suffolk Police Department stopped a vehicle driven by Donald Edward Watson for an equipment violation.
- A routine license check revealed that Watson's operator’s license was suspended.
- Following local police policy for suspended licenses, Officer DeBusk inventoried the vehicle's contents before it was towed to a secure area.
- Officer DeBusk discovered a fully loaded pistol under the driver’s floor mat, completely out of sight.
- The pistol was located on the lower left-hand corner, close to the door of the driver’s compartment, and near the edge of the mat.
- Officer DeBusk testified that a person sitting in the driver’s seat could reach down with their left hand and pull the weapon out without “too abrupt a movement,” describing the location as “easily accessible.”
Procedural Posture:
- Donald Edward Watson was convicted in the trial court (court of first instance) of carrying a concealed weapon in violation of Code § 18.2-308.
- Watson appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals of Virginia, arguing that the evidence did not support the conviction because the pistol was not a weapon carried “about his person.”
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 a loaded pistol placed under the driver’s floor mat, completely out of sight but easily accessible with slight body movement from the driver's seat, constitute a weapon carried “about his person” in violation of Code § 18.2-308?
Opinions:
Majority - Bray, J.
Yes, a loaded pistol placed under the driver's floor mat, completely out of sight but easily accessible with slight body movement from the driver's seat, constitutes a weapon carried "about his person" in violation of Code § 18.2-308. The court affirmed Watson's conviction, stating that the purpose of the concealed weapon statute (Code § 18.2-308) is to prohibit the practice of carrying a deadly weapon that is hidden but sufficiently accessible for prompt and immediate use. Relying on precedent, particularly Schaaf v. Commonwealth, which cited and clarified Sutherland v. Commonwealth, the court held that "about the person" means the weapon is "so connected with the person as to be readily accessible for use or surprise if desired." The court rejected Watson's argument that ready accessibility is negated if "significant body motion" is required, clarifying that "readily" simply means "in a ready manner" or "without much difficulty." The court found that the loaded pistol was "readily accessible" to Watson with only the slightest movement, thus satisfying the statutory requirement of being carried "about his person."
Concurring - Baker, J.
Concurred with the majority opinion.
Concurring - Willis, J.
Concurred with the majority opinion.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the interpretation of the phrase "about his person" within Virginia's concealed weapon statute, reinforcing that the crucial element is a weapon's accessibility for immediate use rather than strict physical proximity to the body. By rejecting the defendant's argument that "noticeable body motion" renders a weapon not readily accessible, the court broadened the scope of what constitutes an unlawful concealed weapon, particularly in vehicle contexts. This ruling provides crucial guidance for law enforcement and courts, making it clear that locations within easy reach, even if not directly on the person, can trigger the statute, thereby enhancing public safety by preventing readily available concealed weapons.
