Case Title: Burkeen v. Commonwealth

Citation: 

Docket Number: 122178

State: virginia

Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Date: 2013-10-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
PRESENT:  All the Justices 
 
CHRISTOPHER BURKEEN 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     OPINION BY 
v.     Record No. 122178  
  
  JUSTICE S. BERNARD GOODWYN 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  October 31, 2013 
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 
 
 
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 
 
In this appeal, we consider whether the Court of Appeals 
erred in affirming the conviction of Christopher Burkeen for 
malicious wounding, in violation of Code § 18.2-51, when 
Burkeen struck the victim with a bare fist only once. 
Procedural Background 
 
Burkeen was indicted for malicious wounding in the Circuit 
Court of the City of Newport News.  The circuit court found 
Burkeen guilty as charged.  Burkeen appealed his conviction to 
the Court of Appeals.  A three-judge panel of the Court of 
Appeals affirmed Burkeen’s conviction by ruling that the 
evidence was sufficient to establish his intent to maliciously 
wound the victim and his violation of Code § 18.2-51.  Burkeen 
v. Commonwealth, Record No. 2566-11-1 (November 27, 2012).  
Burkeen appeals. 
 
Burkeen’s assignment of error states: 
 
The Court of Appeals erred when it found that the 
evidence was sufficient to prove intent to maim, 
disfigure, disable or kill where the defendant struck 
the victim with a single blow with his bare fist.  
 
 
 
2 
Facts 
 
Around closing time on December 30, 2009, Donald Mayer 
stood outside a bar where he had been playing pool.  Burkeen 
approached Mayer and asked to see his pool cue.  Mayer 
acquiesced.  Burkeen asked Mayer how much the cue cost, and 
Mayer informed Burkeen that he purchased it for $230.  Burkeen 
responded, “You’ll take $200.”  Mayer told Burkeen that the 
pool cue was not for sale, and then Burkeen said, “No, you’ll 
take $200 for it.”  Mayer put his hand on his cue that Burkeen 
was holding.  Burkeen let go of the cue and immediately punched 
Mayer in the face. 
Mayer held his nose, which began bleeding.  Burkeen then 
called Mayer a “bitch” and said that he could “kick [his] ass” 
and take Mayer’s cue if he wanted to.  Burkeen also proclaimed 
that he was in the Army and could bench press 200 pounds. 
Keith Taylor saw Burkeen with his arm raised as if he was 
going to hit Mayer again, and he quickly moved to shield Mayer 
from Burkeen’s attack.  Burkeen proceeded to hit Taylor on the 
back of his head three to five times, until Taylor fell to the 
ground.  Burkeen stopped his attack and ran when a bystander 
mentioned that he had called the police. 
A doctor testified that as a result of the blow delivered 
by Burkeen, Mayer had “fractures of the orbit, the malar 
region, which is a series of bones around the cheek, and nasal 
 
3 
fractures.”  The doctor treated Mayer by performing “major 
reconstructive surgery” to address this “significant injury,” 
which was caused by a “significant force.”  Mayer continues to 
have headaches, and he has visible scars and puffiness around 
his eyes because of scar tissue. 
Analysis 
 
Burkeen argues that, as a matter of law, a single blow 
from a bare fist is not sufficient evidence of the intent to 
maim, disfigure, disable or kill, which is required for a 
malicious wounding conviction.  He notes that this Court has 
only sustained a conviction for malicious wounding from a bare 
fist in cases that involved multiple blows.  Therefore, Burkeen 
contends, the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that there was 
sufficient evidence to convict him of malicious wounding. 
 
The Commonwealth responds that the evidence in this case 
was sufficient to convict Burkeen of malicious wounding. 
The standard of review in this case is well-settled. 
When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of 
the evidence to sustain a conviction, . . . . [t]his 
Court will only reverse the judgment of the trial 
court if the judgment is plainly wrong or without 
evidence to support it.  If there is evidence to 
support the conviction[,] the reviewing court is not 
permitted to substitute its own judgment, even if its 
opinion might differ from the conclusions reached by 
the finder of fact at the trial. 
Clark v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 636, 640-41, 691 S.E.2d 786, 788 
(2010) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).  
 
4 
Additionally, when considering the sufficiency of the evidence 
to sustain a conviction, this Court reviews “the evidence in 
the light most favorable to the prevailing party at trial and 
consider[s] all inferences fairly deducible from that 
evidence.”  Id. at 640, 691 S.E.2d at 788 (citation and 
internal quotation marks omitted). 
 
The circuit court convicted Burkeen of malicious wounding 
pursuant to Code § 18.2-51.  To be convicted of malicious 
wounding, the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant 
maliciously stabbed, cut, or wounded “any person or by any 
means cause[d] him bodily injury, with the intent to maim, 
disfigure, disable, or kill.”  Id.; Dowdy v. Commonwealth, 220 
Va. 114, 116, 255 S.E.2d 506, 508 (1979) (“It is elementary 
that the burden is on the Commonwealth to prove every essential 
element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.”) (internal 
quotation marks omitted). 
 
“Malice∗ inheres in the doing of a wrongful act 
intentionally, or without just cause or excuse, or as a result 
of ill will.  [Malicious intent to wound] may be directly 
evidenced by words, or inferred from acts and conduct which 
necessarily result in injury.”  Dawkins v. Commonwealth, 186 
Va. 55, 61, 41 S.E.2d 500, 503 (1947).  The Court of Appeals 
                     
∗ The instant assignment of error only contests “intent” 
and does not implicate “malice.”  Malice is discussed here only 
because it is an integral element of the offense. 
 
5 
has stated, “To be guilty [of malicious wounding], a person 
must [also] intend to permanently, not merely temporarily, harm 
another person.”  Johnson v. Commonwealth, 53 Va. App. 79, 101, 
669 S.E.2d 368, 378 (2008) (citation omitted).  We agree with 
the ruling of the Court of Appeals in Johnson. 
 
“Under ordinary circumstances an intent to maim may not be 
presumed from a blow with a bare fist.  But an assault with a 
bare fist may be attended with such circumstances of violence 
and brutality that an intent to kill may be presumed.”  
Fletcher v. Commonwealth, 209 Va. 636, 640, 166 S.E.2d 269, 273 
(1969) (citation omitted); see Johnson, 53 Va. App. at 103, 669 
S.E.2d at 380 (“Although we have not previously held in a 
reported opinion that a single blow with a bare fist may 
constitute sufficient evidence to prove an intent to 
permanently injure, we hold that under the circumstances of 
this case the jury could make such a determination.”). 
 
“Intent is a state of mind which can be evidenced only by 
the words or conduct of the person who is claimed to have 
entertained it.”  Banovitch v. Commonwealth, 196 Va. 210, 216, 
83 S.E.2d 369, 373 (1954) (citations omitted).  The intent to 
maliciously wound, therefore, “may, like any other fact, be 
shown by circumstances.”  Id. 
In Roark v. Commonwealth, 182 Va. 244, 251, 28 S.E.2d 693, 
696 (1944), an attack with a bare fist did not constitute 
 
6 
malicious wounding.  Roark got into an argument with the 
victim, shouting “You don’t know a . . . damned thing about 
what you are talking about.”  Id. at 246, 28 S.E.2d at 694. 
“Thereupon Roark struck [the victim] with [his non-dominant 
hand] and knocked him down on the sidewalk.”  Id. at 246, 252, 
28 S.E.2d at 694, 696.  Seeing the victim’s injury, Roark 
rushed him to the hospital and offered to pay for all his 
medical expenses.  Id. at 246, 28 S.E.2d at 694.  “The relation 
of the parties, the facts leading up to the blow, the use of 
the left hand or fist, and the acts of [the] defendant 
immediately after the blow clearly show that defendant did not 
intend to inflict serious bodily injury upon [the victim].”  
Id. at 252, 28 S.E.2d at 696.  Therefore, this Court found that 
the defendant did not act with the requisite intent, and as a 
consequence, there was insufficient evidence for a malicious 
wounding conviction.  Id. 
However, this Court found the attendant violence and 
brutality that evidences an intent to maliciously wound in 
Shackelford v. Commonwealth, 183 Va. 423, 32 S.E.2d 682 (1945).  
“The accused, a strong, hale, heavy-set man, made an unprovoked 
attack upon a frail woman 50 years of age in her own kitchen.”  
Id. at 426, 32 S.E.2d at 684.  Further, “[w]hile the attack 
apparently lasted only a few moments, it was brought to an end 
not by the voluntary action of the accused but by the attempts 
 
7 
of [his wife] to stop him . . . and the fact that [the victim] 
made her escape from the room.”  Id. at 427, 32 S.E.2d 684.  
The defendant admitted that he had not only struck the victim, 
“but that he had ‘followed up’ the blow.”  Id.  All of these 
actions and statements were evidence of the brutal and violent 
circumstances of the crime and the defendant’s intent to maim.  
Id. 
 
In Fletcher, 209 Va. at 638, 166 S.E.2d at 271, the 
defendant struck the awakening victim with a bare fist, 
resulting in a “blow-out fracture of the orbital floor with 
incarceration of muscle and the orbital tissue in the 
fracture.”  The defendant also attacked two other individuals 
in the same incident.  This Court held that the assault upon 
the victim “with the bare fist was attended with such 
circumstances of violence and brutality that [there was 
sufficient evidence of] an intent to maim.”  Id. at 640-41, 166 
S.E.2d at 273. 
 
It is proper for a court to consider not only the method 
by which a victim is wounded, but also the circumstances under 
which that injury was inflicted in determining whether there is 
sufficient evidence to prove an intent to maim, disfigure, 
disable or kill.  See Dawkins, 186 Va. at 63, 41 S.E.2d at 504.  
In the present case, the victim did nothing to provoke the 
attack, and he was hit with extreme force in a vulnerable area 
 
8 
of his body while he was defenseless and not expecting such a 
blow.  The blow resulted in serious and disfiguring injury.  
Burkeen bragged of his strength and training while taunting and 
cursing the victim after the first blow, indicating his intent 
to inflict such harm upon the victim.  Additionally, Burkeen 
was poised to attack the victim further until Taylor 
intervened, at which time Taylor was attacked instead.  In 
fact, Burkeen only discontinued his attack when he heard that 
the police had been called. 
We hold that, under the circumstances, there was 
sufficient evidence of violence and brutality for the circuit 
court to find that, although Burkeen delivered only one blow 
with a closed fist, he acted with malice and he intended to 
maim Mayer.  Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the 
Court of Appeals. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Affirmed.