1921 Gallows Road Suite 750 Tysons Corner, Virginia 22182
703.883.0880

Briglia Hundley Blog

Supreme Court addresses which statements made as part of a plea agreement negotiations are made admissible at trial

The Virginia Supreme Court recently addressed the extent to which statements made as part of plea agreement negotiations are admissible at trial. See Cridler-Smith v. Clarke, No. 230450, 2025 Va. LEXIS 3 (Jan. 16, 2025). Virginia Supreme Court Rule 3A:8 forbids using at trial any statement made during plea negotiations:

Except as otherwise provided by law, evidence of a plea of guilty later withdrawn, or a plea of nolo contendere, or of an offer to plead guilty or nolo contendere to the crime charged, or any other crime, or of statements made in connection with and relevant to any of the foregoing pleas or offers, is not admissible in the case-in-chief in any civil or criminal proceeding against the person who made the plea or offer.

Va. Supreme Ct. R. 3A:8(c)(6).

In Cridler-Smith, John Cridler-Smith sent a package from his home in California to his brother’s house in Virginia. While the package was in transit, a drug-sniffing dog alerted on the package. Law enforcement then made a controlled delivery of the package. Shortly after it was delivered, Cridler-Smith arrived at, but did not go into, his brother’s house. The police raided the house and seized the package, which was found to contain marijuana, along with drug paraphernalia used in marijuana trafficking.

Cridler-Smith was arrested along with his brother. Cridler-Smith told his lawyer that he had two goals to meet in resolving his case: to protect his brother and to get out of jail as soon as possible. Cridler-Smith, 2025 Va. LEXIS 3, at *3.  His lawyer advised Cridler-Smith that the best way to achieve those goals was to cooperate with law enforcement.

Counsel then discussed Cridler-Smith’s potential cooperation with the Commonwealth’s Attorney. The Commonwealth Attorney “would not agree to enter into a written agreement” but  “indicated a written agreement would be negotiable after they assess[ed] the value of . . . Cridler-Smith’s cooperation.” Id. at *4.

Based on those conversations, Cridler-Smith met with law enforcement and admitted that he sent the package from California but assured that his brother had nothing to do with marijuana distribution. The charges against Cridler-Smith’s brother were dropped, but the prosecution never offered Cridler-Smith a plea deal. At trial, Cridler-Smith’s confession to law enforcement was admitted into evidence, and he was convicted.

After conviction, Cridler-Smith brought an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, arguing that his lawyer should have moved under Rule 3A:8 to suppress his statements to law enforcement because they were made as part of his exploration of a potential plea agreement.  Rule 3A:8(c)(6) bars from evidence statements “‘made in connection with and relevant to’ an ‘offer to plead guilty or nolo contendere.’” Id. at *22-23

The Court Appeals found that Rule 3A:8(c)(6) ties the admission to the person who offered to plead guilty—the defendant—so a trial court’s review must “begin with an objective review of the action, thoughts, and intentions of the defendant at the time the statement or statements were made.” Id. at *25. However, the Court of Appeals noted that a defendant cannot compel the Commonwealth to discuss a plea agreement. Id. Thus, “if the Commonwealth has no interest in plea negotiations or offers and makes that position clear, a defendant would make any statements at his peril.” Id. at 26.

The Court of Appeals explained that a trial court must consider “the totality of the specific circumstances” surrounding the defendant’s statements when assessing Rule 3A;8’s applicability. For example, the trial court should consider “the statements made (whether an outright confession or just some potentially helpful information), potential motives of a defendant or the Commonwealth, the parties’ history and practice, as well as how the conversation fits within the potential resolution of the case or other related cases will color the analysis.” Id.  The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether Cridler-Smith’s statements should have been excluded under Rule 3A:8.

Cridler-Smith provides important guidance for attorneys advising criminal defendants.  If you or someone you know are facing criminal charges, you need an attorney who understands all the complex issues criminal cases present.  The attorneys at Briglia Hundley have extensive experience handling all types of criminal charges and are available to discuss any pending case or ongoing criminal investigation.