COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Beales, Russell and AtLee Argued at Richmond, Virginia UNPUBLISHED MARYAM MAHMOUDIEH MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY v. Record No. 0032-18-2 JUDGE RICHARD Y. ATLEE, JR. FEBRUARY 26, 2019 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY Cheryl V. Higgins, Judge Elliott M. Harding (Matthew J. Quatrara; Harding Counsel PLLC; Stone, Dinkin & Amirhashi PLC; Lenhart Pettit PC, on briefs), for appellant. Rachel L. Yates, Assistant Attorney General (Mark R. Herring, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. A jury convicted Maryam Mahmoudieh of petit larceny in violation of Code § 18.2-103. On appeal, Mahmoudieh argues that the trial court erred by refusing to answer the jury’s sua sponte question about the impact a conviction would have on Mahmoudieh’s immigration status. Mahmoudieh did not properly preserve this argument; thus, we affirm her conviction. I. BACKGROUND Mahmoudieh is an Iranian national legally present in the United States on a green card. She was charged with petit larceny after shoplifting a dress from a Kohl’s store. Prior to her trial, the Commonwealth filed a motion in limine asking the trial court to preclude Mahmoudieh from arguing for jury nullification, i.e., that the jury should acquit her because of the potential collateral immigration consequences. The motion asked the trial court to * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. exclude “[a]ny questioning, testimony, argument or jury instructions related to the defendant’s immigration status, or potential collateral consequences to such status, as a result of the pending charges or conviction” during both voir dire and trial. Mahmoudieh’s counsel acknowledged that he was not “ethically allowed to make an explicit argument for nullification.” He then argued that Mahmoudieh’s immigration status, and her Iranian national origin, was important because Iran and illegal immigration are divisive issues, and he wanted to ensure that there was no one on the jury that would have “issues” with Mahmoudieh’s national origin or immigration status.1 The trial court overruled the motion in limine and allowed Mahmoudieh’s counsel to ask questions during voir dire about Mahmoudieh’s immigration status. Although those issues had “nothing to do with the elements of the offense,” the trial court decided to “permit those limited questions” during voir dire to ensure that there was no bias or prejudice towards Mahmoudieh because of her national origin or immigration status. The trial proceeded, and the case was submitted to the jury. During deliberations in the guilt phase of the trial, the jury submitted the following questions to the trial court: “Will a conviction affect her green card status? Will a conviction lead to deportation or other sanctions?” Outside the presence of the jury, the trial court stated, and the Commonwealth agreed, that the proper answer was to instruct the jury to consider only the evidence before it. Mahmoudieh’s counsel requested a different answer and specified that it would “like that answer as a yes.” The trial court rejected that request. Mahmoudieh’s counsel did not make additional arguments “given the [trial ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals