Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, May 26, 1994 TAG: 9405260089
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: C1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: LAURENCE HAMMACK STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
After indicating last November that he had found sufficient evidence to convict Charles "Richie" Cranwell - the 29-year-old son of House Majority Leader Richard Cranwell, D-Roanoke County - Judge Robert T.S. Colby on Wednesday dismissed the charge.
Roanoke prosecutors and an anti-drunken driving group that monitored the case stopped short of saying Cranwell received special treatment because of his father's influence, but said the judge's decision nonetheless created that impression.
"The bottom line is, the manner in which the court handled this case undermines public confidence in the system," Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Wanda DeWease said.
Because the driving under the influence charge was Cranwell's second, he would have faced a mandatory sentence of at least two days in jail had he been convicted.
Colby, a retired Alexandria judge appointed to hear the case after Roanoke judges recused themselves, has a reputation for handling cases in unorthodox ways, according to lawyers who regularly practiced in his court.
The judge's decision was unusual not only because it seemed to contradict his earlier statements from the bench, but also because it was based on evidence that Cranwell never raised as a defense.
In a written opinion, Colby said that Cranwell's condition the night of his DUI arrest could have been caused by diabetes as easily as alcohol.
The issue of diabetes was not raised during the trial but surfaced later in a medical report that Colby requested after saying he had heard enough evidence to convict Cranwell.
Confronted with the diabetes issue for the first time in court this week, DeWease told Colby that he was going outside of the evidence presented at trial and making himself "an expert witness for the defense."
DeWease reminded Colby that he said in November that he found the evidence sufficient to convict Cranwell, and in fact had found him guilty.
"Please don't misquote me," Colby responded. The judge maintained that he said only that the evidence "could support a conviction."
Members of People Against Impaired Drivers, who attended the November hearing, said they also understood Colby to say that he was convicting Cranwell.
"We feel like the judge has gone back on his word," said John Markey, chairman of the board of PAID. Because hearings are not recorded in General District Court, there is no official record of what the judge said.
Markey said Colby's decision "flies in the face of all the other people who don't have powerful fathers and access to powerful attorneys. They go into court, and the judge throws the book at them."
Cranwell was charged with DUI on May 13, 1993, after he was stopped for speeding on Avenham Avenue Southwest on his way home from a nightclub. He was also charged with refusing to take a blood-alcohol test. Cranwell pleaded guilty to that charge in February. His driver's license was suspended for six months.
As for the DUI charge, even prosecutors acknowledge it was a close call.
Not only was there no blood or breath test, but there was no evidence of any overly erratic driving by Cranwell. Arresting Officer J.L. Goad testified at the November hearing that Cranwell was able to perform some field sobriety tests but failed others.
Cranwell said he had consumed three beers while out with friends but did not consider himself to be impaired.
After the November hearing, Colby delayed a decision until February so he could receive a report on Cranwell's medical condition. At the February hearing, he ordered Cranwell to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings four nights a week and to submit updates on his medical condition - delaying a final decision in the case until this week.
In his written opinion, Colby noted that Cranwell's diabetes and hypoglycemia, a related metabolic problem, could have caused "altered mental and neurologic functions."
Defense attorney Tom Blaylock had asked Colby to dismiss the charge for reasons other than Cranwell's diabetes, including questions raised by Goad's observations the night of the arrest.
Blaylock noted that Goad estimated in court that the site of Cranwell's arrest was about 15 miles from the courthouse when it was no more than two; that on the two warrants he wrote that night, he recorded the weather as being clear on one and raining on the other; and that after tucking Cranwell's driver's license into his belt, the officer later ordered him to hand it over.
"This whole case relies on the officer's observations," Blaylock said. But the judge made no mention of those factors in his decision.
Both Blaylock and Colby have said that Cranwell's father had no role or bearing in the case.
"I'm not going to be swayed by the fact that he's the son of somebody prominent," Colby said in November. "I could care less about that."
by CNB