Carosi v. Commonwealth

280 Va. 545, 701 S.E.2d 441 (2010)

From our private database of 47,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Carosi v. Commonwealth

Virginia Supreme Court
280 Va. 545, 701 S.E.2d 441 (2010)

Facts

Angela Carosi (defendant) lived with her three children, ages 10, five, and three. The father of two of the children, Cavell Thomas, sometimes lived with them. Thomas was arrested on illegal-drug charges. A Virginia State Police agent served a search warrant on Carosi’s home, seeking illegal drugs. The agent claimed Carosi told him (1) he would find bongs in a wardrobe in her bedroom and (2) she kept some of her clothes in that wardrobe. In the wardrobe, the agent found marijuana, bongs, and other drug paraphernalia. The agent also found oxycodone, ecstasy, and cocaine in or around an unlocked safe in Carosi’s bedroom. Carosi denied knowing about the drugs in the safe. According to the agent, all the illegal drugs were within reach of even a small child. Carosi was charged with possessing illegal drugs and child endangerment. At trial, Thomas testified that the wardrobe and drugs were solely his and he had brought the drugs in the house one day before the search. Carosi denied telling the agent that she knew there were bongs in the wardrobe or that she kept her clothes there. Carosi also denied knowing that illegal drugs were in her home. The prosecution presented testimony from the agent and other evidence questioning Thomas’s and Carosi’s credibility. The jury acquitted Carosi of the drug-possession charges but found her guilty of felony child endangerment. Carosi was given a total punishment of $1,500 in criminal fines. Carosi appealed, arguing that her acquittal on the drug-possession charges meant the jury found she did not have actual knowledge of the drugs’ presence, which was the alleged danger to her children. Carosi also argued that even if she knew about the illegal drugs, their presence was no more dangerous than kitchen knives or legal drugs. Thus, the prosecution had not presented sufficient evidence to establish that Carosi had acted with criminal negligence, the mens rea (i.e., state of mind) required to commit the crime of child endangerment. The appellate court rejected the arguments. Carosi appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Koontz, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 899,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 47,000 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership