Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Jason Park v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Date: 05-09-2022
Case Number: 0592-21-4
Judge: MARLA GRAFF DECKER
Court:
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
On appeal from The CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY
Plaintiff's Attorney: Lindsay M. Brooker, Assistant Attorney General
Defendant's Attorney:
Tell MoreLaw About Your Litigation Successes and MoreLaw Will Tell the World.
Re: MoreLaw National Jury Verdict and Settlement
Counselor:
MoreLaw collects and publishes civil and criminal litigation information from the state and federal courts nationwide. Publication is free and access to the information is free to the public.
Description:
Outcome:
The trial court did not err in denying the appellant’s motion to suppress. Further, the appellant’s challenge to the implied consent form fails. Finally, the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to prove that the appellant was the driver and that his refusal was unreasonable. Consequently, we affirm the conviction for refusal of a breath test, second offense.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of Jason Park v. Commonwealth of Virginia?
The outcome was: The trial court did not err in denying the appellant’s motion to suppress. Further, the appellant’s challenge to the implied consent form fails. Finally, the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to prove that the appellant was the driver and that his refusal was unreasonable. Consequently, we affirm the conviction for refusal of a breath test, second offense.
Which court heard Jason Park v. Commonwealth of Virginia?
This case was heard in <center><h4><b> COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA </b>
<br>
<br>
<font color="green"><i>On appeal from The CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY </i></font></center></h4>, VA. The presiding judge was MARLA GRAFF DECKER.
Who were the attorneys in Jason Park v. Commonwealth of Virginia?
Plaintiff's attorney: Lindsay M. Brooker, Assistant Attorney General. Defendant's attorney: Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan
Click Here For The Best Richmond, Virginia Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory
Tell MoreLaw About Your Litigation Successes and MoreLaw Will Tell the World.
Re: MoreLaw National Jury Verdict and Settlement
Counselor:
MoreLaw collects and publishes civil and criminal litigation information from the state and federal courts nationwide. Publication is free and access to the information is free to the public..
When was Jason Park v. Commonwealth of Virginia decided?
This case was decided on May 9, 2022.
About This Case
What was the outcome of Jason Park v. Commonwealth of Virginia?
The outcome was: The trial court did not err in denying the appellant’s motion to suppress. Further, the appellant’s challenge to the implied consent form fails. Finally, the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to prove that the appellant was the driver and that his refusal was unreasonable. Consequently, we affirm the conviction for refusal of a breath test, second offense.
Which court heard Jason Park v. Commonwealth of Virginia?
This case was heard in <center><h4><b> COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA </b> <br> <br> <font color="green"><i>On appeal from The CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY </i></font></center></h4>, VA. The presiding judge was MARLA GRAFF DECKER.
Who were the attorneys in Jason Park v. Commonwealth of Virginia?
Plaintiff's attorney: Lindsay M. Brooker, Assistant Attorney General. Defendant's attorney: Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan Click Here For The Best Richmond, Virginia Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory Tell MoreLaw About Your Litigation Successes and MoreLaw Will Tell the World. Re: MoreLaw National Jury Verdict and Settlement Counselor: MoreLaw collects and publishes civil and criminal litigation information from the state and federal courts nationwide. Publication is free and access to the information is free to the public..
When was Jason Park v. Commonwealth of Virginia decided?
This case was decided on May 9, 2022.