Date: 01-18-2022

Case Style:

Commonwealth of Virginia v. Gregory Leon Hammer

Case Number: 0819-20-3

Judge: Not Available

Court: Circuit Court of the City of Waynesboro, Virginia

Plaintiff's Attorney: City of Waynesboro Commonwealth's Attorney

Defendant's Attorney: Gene Hart

Description: Harrrisburg, Virginia criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with abduction, felony eluding, and driving after being declared a habitual offender.

On the evening of November 27, 2018, Officer Brandon Mawyer was patrolling in his police cruiser in the City of Waynesboro when he received a "be on the lookout" alert for a "possibly-abducted female ... named Morgan Hammer." The alert said that Morgan may have been abducted by Hammer—her husband—and "that they may be en route to their apartment" in Waynesboro.

Mawyer was familiar with Hammer and his wife. He had seen Hammer "up close and personal" while working on other matters. He had examined photographs of Hammer, including pictures of Hammer's tattoos. Mawyer had also spoken to both spouses during a traffic stop. Knowing where they lived, Mawyer drove to the Hammers’ apartment in Waynesboro, but the lights were off and no one was home.

Believing that Hammer might be returning home from Rockingham County, Mawyer drove to the Waynesboro city limits on Route 340. He pulled into a driveway on the side of the road and waited there with his lights off, the rear of his patrol car facing north towards Rockingham County, to minimize the chance of being spotted by someone approaching from that direction. Although it was nighttime, the road was illuminated by a streetlight not more than five feet from where Mawyer positioned his car. The road was illuminated even more by a second streetlight a little farther away. A photograph showing the illuminated road was introduced into evidence as the Commonwealth's Exhibit 2. With that lighting—and his patrol car facing south, towards Waynesboro—Mawyer had a clear and unobstructed view of the road from his driver's side window.

Within about a minute, Mawyer spotted a car approaching rapidly from behind. Mawyer activated his radar and clocked the vehicle doing sixty-three miles an hour in the thirty-five-mile-an-hour zone.

As the vehicle passed him, Mawyer saw Hammer behind the wheel and Morgan in the passenger seat, looking out the window towards him. Hammer leaned forward—looking around Morgan to see into Mawyer's patrol car—and "actually made eye contact" with Mawyer. Mawyer recognized both immediately. Mawyer also saw the distinctive tattoo on Hammer's hand as Hammer held the steering wheel.

Mawyer activated his emergency lights and siren and commenced pursuit. Hammer fled, accelerating to speeds over 100 mph, driving the wrong way on a divided highway and forcing an oncoming car off the road to avoid a head-on collision. Because Mawyer had positively identified Hammer, and to reduce the risk of an accident, Mawyer slowed down and turned off his emergency equipment, continuing to follow at a safe distance. After entering Augusta County, Hammer briefly "crash[ed]" and continued to drive erratically, on and off the road. An Augusta sheriff's deputy joined the pursuit.

After running out of gas, Hammer's car came to a stop in Fishersville. Mawyer observed for about ten seconds as Hammer exited his car, ran down the embankment, climbed over a barbed-wire fence, and disappeared into the woods behind. Hammer was wearing a black leather jacket. Because he could not see Morgan, Mawyer rushed to the Hammers’ car, finding her alive on the passenger floorboard. Mawyer then ran after Hammer, but by then Hammer had escaped into the woods beyond.

Mawyer returned to check on Morgan. She was "scared," telling Mawyer that she'd been abducted. She also gave a written statement about what had happened.

* * *

Legal issue Can a court reinstate an abduction charge after allowing an oral nolle prosequi if the defendant did not object to the withdrawal of nolle prosequi at trial?
Headnote

CRIMINAL LAW. PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION TO WITHDRAW NOLLE PROSEQUI. The case examines whether the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution to withdraw a nolle prosequi and proceed on an abduction charge when the alleged victim appeared in court.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. PROCEDURAL DEFAULT RULE. The court addresses the issue of procedural default, specifically whether a defendant's failure to contemporaneously object to reinstating charges that were orally nolle prossed could be excused, and the application of Rule 5A:18.

CRIMINAL LAW. CREDIBILITY OF WITNESS TESTIMONY. The court assesses whether a police officer’s testimony identifying the appellant as the perpetrator was inherently incredible, thus evaluating the trial court’s refusal to set aside the verdict based on that testimony.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. PROBATION REVOCATION. The court reviews the revocation of the appellant's probation based on new convictions and determines whether such revocation was proper given the affirmation of the underlying convictions.
Key Paragraphs
Highlight Key Paragraphs
“...Consistent with the standard of review when a criminal appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, we recite the evidence below "in the ‘light most favorable’ to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party in the trial court."...”
Key Phrases Abduction charge. Nolle prosequi. Procedural default. Inherently incredible testimony. Probation revocation.

Outcome: The Defendant was convicted.

Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: