Today's opinions from the Virginia Court of Appeals

In Goad v. Virginia Board of Medicine, the court in an opinion by Judge Clements reversed for lack of evidence the circuit court's determination that the doctor was guilty of unprofessional conduct, where the evidence showed the doctor had sexually harassed various medical students and co-workers but the Commonwealth did not show how this was prohibited under any applicable standard of the Board of Medicine. (I suspect there will be some new rules put out shortly to remedy this gap.)

In Samudio-Perez v. Commonwealth, the court in an opinion by Judge Annunziata held that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's mid-trial motion for mistrial based on evidence that one of the investigators in the case had also investigated a case where the victim was the daughter of one of the jurors.

In Johnson v. Commonwealth, the court in an opinion by Judge Fitzpatrick affirmed the constitutionality of Va. Code § 18.2-67.9, which allows child victims to testify via closed circuit television.

In Smith v. Commonwealth, the court in an opinion by Judge Frank reversed the defendant's rape and other convictions, because of the trial court's failure to issue curative instructions regarding the improper comments of the Commonwealth's attorney during voir dire.

In Dugger v. Commonwealth, the court in an opinion by Judge Kelsey upheld the DUI conviction of a passenger who momentarily seized the steering wheel, causing a wreck.

In Wolfe v. Virginia Birth-related Neurological Injury Compensation Program, the court in an opinion by Judge Elder held that the Worker's Compensation Commission should reconsider the evidence on whether claimant's claim was within the program.

In City of Newport News D.S.S. v. Winslow, the court in an opinion by Judge Humphreys held that the trial court in its assessment of the sufficiency of the social services department's evidence in support of a petition to terminate residual parental rights of a mother with bi-polar and obsessive-compulsive disorders.

In Thomas v. Thomas, the court in an opinion by Judge Annunziata held that the trial court in concluding that payment of court-ordered spousal support was "waste" of marital assets.