lOMoARcPSD|22015503
Case Brief
Criminal Justice Research and Writing (Liberty
University)
lOMoARcPSD|22015503
CASE BRIEF: CJUS230
Caption:
Bartley v. Commonwealth , Va. Ct. App (2017)
Facts:
The Waynesboro City police department executed a search warrant related to
methamphetamines at the residence of a suspected “distributor’ of methamphetamines.
This “distributor” identified Bartley as his/her supplier of methamphetamine. The
distributor then called Bartley and placed an order for methamphetamines. Bartley
arrived a short time later by vehicle. Bartley’s vehicle was then searched by police,
under the auspices of the search warrant, who located a set of scales coated with
methamphetamine residue in Bartley’s vehicle.
Procedural History:
The case was originally brought before the trial court which resulted in a verdict. The
Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals of Virginia asserting the trial court
committed a reversible error in reaching this verdict. The trial court’s verdict was then
affirmed.
Issue:
Whether the police improperly “lured” the defendant to a residence that was subject to a
search warrant to bring him within the scope of the search warrant. Defendant further
states that no probable cause existed to search his vehicle because the distributer was not
a reliable informant.
Rule of Law:
“Rule 5A:20(e) requires that an appellant’s opening brief contain ‘[t]he principles of law,
the argument, and the authorities relating to each question presented.’ Unsupported
assertions of error “do not merit appellate consideration.” The defendant mentions Carroll
v. United States but did not provide legal analysis from this case.
Holding:
The defendant’s conviction was affirmed due to his arguments being devoid of legal
argument or support.
Rationale:
The court states that the burden of researching and constructing a litigant’s arguments are
the responsibility of the litigant and not the courts, whether they be trial or appellate.
lOMoARcPSD|22015503
Bartley fell short in his burden to prove the trial court committed reversible error by
failing to provide supporting legal arguments.
