Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Lacy, Hassell, Keenan, and
Koontz, JJ., and Poff, Senior Justice
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
v. Record No. 961285 OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN
February 28, 1997
ERIC M. SIEBERT
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
John K. Moore, Judge
The sole issue in this appeal is whether a municipality has
a right of appeal to the circuit court from a general district
court judgment dismissing a charge of refusal to submit to a
blood or breath alcohol test.
In January 1995, Eric M. Siebert was arrested in the City of
Virginia Beach (the City) for driving under the influence of
alcohol. He also was charged with refusing to take a blood or
breath alcohol test, in violation of Virginia Beach City Code
§ 21-338(c). 1 The general district court dismissed the refusal
charge, and the City appealed the dismissal to the circuit court.
In the circuit court, Siebert filed a motion to dismiss the
City's appeal on the ground that Code § 16.1-106 does not
2
authorize the City to appeal a dismissal of a refusal charge.
1
Virginia Beach City Code § 21-338(c) contains essentially
the same language as Virginia Code § 18.2-268.3.
2
Code § 16.1-106 provides, in relevant part, for an appeal
of right to a court of record
[f]rom any order entered or judgment rendered in a
court not of record in a civil case in which the matter
in controversy is of greater value than fifty dollars,
exclusive of interest, any attorney's fees contracted
for in the instrument, and costs, or when the case
The trial court granted Siebert's motion and entered an order
dismissing the case.
The City argues that the circuit court erred in dismissing
its appeal. The City asserts that, since this Court has ruled
that a municipality may appeal the dismissal of a refusal charge
from the circuit court to this Court, the City must also have a
right of appeal to the circuit court from the general district
court. See City of Norfolk v. Brown, 218 Va. 924, 925, 243
S.E.2d 200, 200 (1978). The City also contends that Code § 18.2-
268.4, which guarantees the right to a jury trial in a refusal
case "if requested by either party on appeal to the circuit
court," implicitly acknowledges that either party has a right of
appeal from a general district court judgment in a refusal case.
We first observe that a charge of refusal to take a blood or
breath alcohol test is civil and administrative in nature. Cash
v. Commonwealth, 251 Va. 46, 49, 466 S.E.2d 736, 738 (1996);
Commonwealth v. Gray, 248 Va. 633, 635-36, 449 S.E.2d 807, 809
(1994); Commonwealth v. Rafferty, 241 Va. 319, 321-22, 402 S.E.2d
17, 19 (1991); Deaner v. Commonwealth, 210 Va. 285, 293, 170
S.E.2d 199, 204 (1969). Thus, we consider Code § 16.1-106, which
governs the right of appeal in civil cases from the general
district courts. We must determine whether the omission of a
(..continued)
involves the constitutionality or validity of a statute
of the Commonwealth, or of an ordinance or bylaw of a
municipal corporation, or of the enforcement of rights
and privileges conferred by the Virginia Freedom of
Information Act (§ 2.1-340 et seq.) . . . .
- 2 -
reference to refusal cases in that statute precludes a right of
appeal in such cases to the circuit court.
In conjunction with the provisions of Code § 16.1-106, we
consider Code § 8.01-670, which governs the right of appeal in
civil cases from the circuit courts to this Court, and Code
§ 18.2-268.4, which establishes the procedure for trial of
refusal cases in the circuit court. We must construe these three
statutes, if possible, in a manner that harmonizes and gives
effect to each of them. See First Virginia Bank v. O'Leary, 251
Va. 308, 312, 467 S.E.2d 775, 777 (1996); Albemarle County v.
Marshall, Clerk, 215 Va. 756, 761, 214 S.E.2d 146, 150 (1975).
We conclude that the three statutes, considered
collectively, demonstrate a legislative intent to provide either
party a right to appeal to the circuit court an adverse judgment
in a refusal case. Code § 16.1-106 provides the same rights of
appeal to plaintiffs and defendants in civil cases. Therefore,
if the City does not have a right of appeal to the circuit court
in a refusal case, the defendant also has no right of appeal.
Code § 18.2-268.4, however, details procedures for the trial
of appeals of refusal cases in the circuit courts. If neither
party can appeal from a general district court's judgment in a
refusal case, the procedures set forth in this statute would be
rendered meaningless. We will not construe a statute in a manner
that deprives another statute of effect or meaning. See County
of Greensville v. City of Emporia, 245 Va. 143, 149, 427 S.E.2d
- 3 -
352, 356 (1993); Marchand v. Division of Crime Victims'
Compensation, 230 Va. 460, 463, 339 S.E.2d 175, 177 (1986).
In addition, unless a party has a right to appeal an adverse
judgment to the circuit court in a refusal case, that party could
never exercise an appeal to this Court. However, this Court has
recognized that in refusal cases, both municipalities and the
Commonwealth have a right of appeal from the circuit court to
this Court. See Rafferty, 241 Va. at 323-24, 402 S.E.2d at 20;
City of Norfolk v. Brown, 218 Va. at 925, 243 S.E.2d at 200.
This right is granted to municipalities and the Commonwealth, as
well as to defendants, by Code § 8.01-670(A)(3), based on their
status as "person[s] . . . aggrieved . . . [b]y a final judgment
in any other civil case."
We conclude that the language of Code § 16.1-106 can be
construed to avoid such statutory inconsistencies. We interpret
the monetary controversy provision of Code § 16.1-106 as language
intended to exclude a right of appeal in those civil cases
involving an insignificant monetary controversy. A refusal case
does not fall within this category of excluded cases because the
right at issue does not involve a monetary controversy.
The legislative intent to provide for an appeal to the
circuit court in refusal cases is manifest when Code § 16.1-106
is considered together with the following directive of Code
§ 18.2-268.4:
The procedure for appeal and trial [of refusal cases]
shall be the same as provided by law for misdemeanors;
if requested by either party on appeal to the circuit
- 4 -
court, trial by jury shall be as provided in Article 4
(§ 19.2-260 et seq.) of Chapter 15 of Title 19.2, and
the Commonwealth shall be required to prove its case
beyond a reasonable doubt. [Emphasis added.]
Thus, we hold that Code § 16.1-106 allows the City a right of
appeal to the circuit court from an adverse judgment in a refusal
case. This conclusion harmonizes the three statutes under
consideration and gives full effect to their provisions.
For these reasons, we will reverse the trial court's
judgment and remand the case for trial on the refusal charge.
Reversed and remanded.
- 5 -