The caption
The parties exactly as the court lists them—not a claim about the merits.
State court of last resort · ST-VA-SC
Kozmina v. Commonwealth
No. 092395Supreme Court of Virginia
092395 Kozmina v. Commonwealth 03/04/2011 The trial court did not err by denying a defendant's motion to disqualify the Commonwealth's Attorney from prosecuting a charge of first offense refusal to take a brea…
The clerk's words are shown exactly as filed.The activity
Orders, motions, and filings in the clerk's own words and sequence.
The source
The official docket and available court documents attached to every update.
092395 Kozmina v. Commonwealth 03/04/2011 The trial court did not err by denying a defendant's motion to disqualify the Commonwea…
- Court
- Supreme Court of Virginia
- First added here
- October 4, 2026
- Last entry
- March 4, 2011
No bill or executive-order citation is attached to this file.
Official docket
Case timeline
The clerk's wording is shown verbatim and linked to the court's own document page where available.
Docket entry
092395 Kozmina v. Commonwealth 03/04/2011 The trial court did not err by denying a defendant's motion to disqualify the Commonwealth's Attorney from prosecuting a charge of first offense refusal to take a breath test in violation of Code § 18.2-268.3 on the theory that a Commonwealth's Attorney has no authority to prosecute "civil" offenses. Commonwealth's Attorneys and their assistants are vested with the authority to prosecute such refusal cases under Code § 18.2-268.4(B). The judgment is affirmed.
Open court document ↗Rulings in this case over time
Courts at different levels and stages can reach different results in the same case. Each entry is the court's own record; read it before drawing a conclusion.
1 entry, oldest first.
· Supreme Court of Virginia
AffirmedDenied
The court's record, as written
092395 Kozmina v. Commonwealth 03/04/2011 The trial court did not err by denying a defendant's motion to disqualify the Commonwealth's Attorney from prosecuting a charge of first offense refusal to take a breath test in violation of Code § 18.2-268.3 on the theory that a Commonwealth's Attorney has no authority to prosecute "civil" offenses. Commonwealth's Attorneys and their assistants are vested with the authority to prosecute such refusal cases under Code § 18.2-268.4(B). The judgment is affirmed.
Outcome words in this text: denying, affirmed.
Method: an entry is marked with an outcome only when its own text contains the outcome word, and the word is shown beside it. Orders, opinions and judgments whose text does not say are marked Other. Party filings, notices and routine procedural orders (appearances, extra pages, time extensions, scheduling) are not listed. No link between this case and any other case is recorded in our data, so only this case's own record is shown. Open the court's docket
Documents and links