Case Title: Hudson (James) v. Commonwealth

Citation: 

Docket Number: 031461

State: virginia

Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Date: 2004-01-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
Present:  Hassell, C.J., Lacy, Keenan, Kinser, Lemons, and 
Agee, JJ., and Carrico, S.J. 
 
JAMES BRYANT HUDSON 
 
v.  Record No. 031461     OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY 
 
 
 
January 16, 2004 
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 
 
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HALIFAX COUNTY 
Leslie M. Osborn, Judge 
 
 
James Bryant Hudson received a death sentence upon 
pleading guilty to a charge of capital murder for the 
"willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing of more than 
one person as a part of the same act or transaction."  Code 
§ 18.2-31(7).  Although Hudson waived his right to appeal, 
Code § 17.1-313 requires that we review the imposition of the 
death sentence to determine whether the death sentence "was 
imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice or any other 
arbitrary factor" and whether the death sentence is "excessive 
or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, 
considering both the crime and the defendant." 
Background 
 
Pursuant to established principles of appellate review, 
we recite the facts in the light most favorable to the 
Commonwealth, the party prevailing below.  Commonwealth v. 
Bower, 264 Va. 41, 43, 563 S.E.2d 736, 737 (2002). 
A single driveway connected Hudson's home and the home of 
Linda and Walter Stanley Cole to State Route 658, known as 
Virgie Cole Road.  On July 3, 2002, Stanley and his brother, 
Thomas Wesley Cole, were riding in a truck on the driveway 
towards Hudson's home when they encountered Hudson's vehicle 
stopped in the middle of the driveway facing them.  Wesley, 
the driver, stopped the truck and got out.  Hudson and Wesley 
stood at the driver's side of the truck and talked for a few 
minutes.  Wesley then got back into the truck and began 
driving down the road, when according to an eyewitness, Hudson 
took a 12-gauge shotgun from his vehicle.  Then, the 
eyewitness heard Wesley ask "Why do you shoot . . . why do you 
shoot us," as Hudson fired the shotgun through the front 
windshield of Wesley's truck.  The eyewitness heard more shots 
as he ran to get help.  
A neighbor then saw Hudson drive around the front of the 
Coles' home and stop in the driveway beside the garden where 
Patsy A. Cole, Wesley's wife, was working.  The neighbor saw 
Hudson get out of his truck, take a shotgun from the back of 
his truck, and raise the gun.  Patsy Cole, seeing Hudson, 
asked "What are you doing?"  Hudson shot her, climbed back 
into his truck, and drove away. 
 
After the shootings, Hudson returned to his home where he 
parked the truck, got more ammunition, and left in another 
truck.  Hudson telephoned his sister-in-law and stated that 
"he had done some shooting." 
 
2
When police officers arrived in response to a call from 
the Coles' neighbor, they found Patsy Cole's body and 
subsequently discovered the bodies of Stanley and Wesley Cole.  
Patsy died from a hemorrhage caused by a shot that penetrated 
the vital organs of her chest and abdomen. 
Stanley Cole's body was found in the passenger's side of 
the truck slumped over towards the middle of the cab.  Stanley 
had sustained multiple pellet wounds to his head and neck and 
a fatal shotgun wound behind the left ear measuring 
approximately two and one half inches wide.  Two expended 12-
gauge shotgun shells were found on the driveway near the 
driver's side door of Wesley Cole's truck.  There were shotgun 
blasts to the center, front windshield, rear windshield, and 
passenger door of the truck. 
 
Wesley's body was found lying in a ditch approximately 
five yards from the rear of the truck.  He apparently suffered 
a nonfatal gunshot wound to his right arm inside the truck 
before fleeing the truck in an attempt to escape.  Wesley 
sustained a fatal gunshot wound to the head. 
The Halifax County Sheriff's office obtained warrants for 
Hudson's arrest that afternoon and apprehended Hudson the next 
day without incident.  At the time of the arrest, Hudson had a 
12-gauge semi-automatic shotgun and a pistol in his truck.  
 
3
Subsequent analysis determined that Hudson had used that 
shotgun and "Number 00 Buck" pellets to kill the Coles. 
Proceedings 
In September 2002, a grand jury indicted Hudson for the 
capital murder of Stanley Cole and Wesley Cole, the capital 
murder of Wesley Cole and Patsy Cole, and the capital murder 
of Stanley Cole and Patsy Cole in violation of Code § 18.2-
31(7) (the "willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing of 
more than one person as a part of the same act or 
transaction").  Hudson was also indicted for the first-degree 
murders of Stanley Cole, Wesley Cole, and Patsy Cole, Code 
§ 18.2-32, and six counts of unlawfully and feloniously using 
a firearm in the commission of a felony, Code § 18.2-53. 
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Hudson pled guilty to the 
capital murder of Stanley Cole and Wesley Cole, the first-
degree murder of Patsy Cole, and two counts of unlawfully and 
feloniously using a firearm in the commission of a felony, and 
the Commonwealth agreed to nolle prosequi the remaining 
charges.  After determining that Hudson's pleas of guilty were 
freely, intelligently, and voluntarily made, the trial court 
accepted the guilty pleas. 
At the sentencing hearing, the Commonwealth sought the 
death penalty based on the aggravating factors of vileness and 
future dangerousness.  The Commonwealth presented the 
 
4
presentence report, victim impact statements, the testimony of 
Hudson's brother, and the testimony of various persons 
affected by the loss of the Coles.  Hudson refused to present 
mitigating evidence and instructed his attorney not to do so.  
The trial court found that the evidence in this case supported 
a finding of both vileness and future dangerousness.  Based 
upon this finding, the trial court imposed the penalty of 
death because Hudson had a history of "significant criminal 
activity;" showed no evidence of extreme mental or emotional 
disturbance, lack of mental capacity, or history of mental 
retardation; and had engaged in deliberate, execution-style 
murders that were "cold-blooded, pitiless, [and] senseless 
slayings."  The trial court also commented that Hudson showed 
no remorse, justification, or motive for killing innocent 
people.   
On May 12, 2003, Hudson signed a waiver of his right to 
appeal his death sentence.  On that same date, the trial court 
conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Hudson's 
waiver of his right to appeal was proper.  The court entered 
an order on May 19, 2003 based upon a finding that Hudson 
knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to 
appeal. 
 
5
Discussion 
A defendant may voluntarily waive his right to appeal a 
sentence of death and instruct his attorney to refrain from 
seeking a commutation of that sentence.  A defendant cannot, 
however, waive a review of the death sentence pursuant to Code 
§ 17.1-313(A) and (C) because "the purpose of the review 
process is to assure the fair and proper application of the 
death penalty statutes in this Commonwealth and to instill 
public confidence in the administration of justice."  Akers v. 
Commonwealth, 260 Va. 358, 364, 535 S.E.2d 674, 677 (2000). 
Accordingly, we review Hudson's death sentence to 
determine whether the trial court imposed that sentence "under 
the influence of passion, prejudice or any other arbitrary 
factor" and whether the sentence "is excessive or 
disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, 
considering both the crime and the defendant."  Code § 17.1-
313(C)(1)–(2). 
First, we address whether the trial court imposed 
Hudson's death sentence "under the influence of passion, 
prejudice or any other arbitrary factor."  Code § 17.1-
313(C)(1).  We find no evidence in the record indicating that 
the trial court ruled under such influences.  We further 
observe that the trial court, although not mandated to do so, 
offered Hudson more than one opportunity to present mitigating 
 
6
evidence at the sentencing hearing.  Hudson refused to present 
any such evidence. 
Next, we consider whether the sentence is excessive or 
disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, 
considering both the crime and the defendant.  Code § 17.1-
313(C)(2).  This Court has accumulated the records of all 
capital murder cases where a defendant received a death 
sentence as well as those where a defendant received a life 
sentence.  Code § 17.1-313(E). 
We have reviewed the capital murder cases where a 
defendant killed more than one person as part of the same act 
or transaction and where the Commonwealth sought the death 
penalty based upon the aggravating factors of vileness and 
future dangerousness.  After such review, we find that the 
defendant's sentence was not excessive or disproportionate to 
the sentences imposed in capital murder cases comparable to 
this case.  See Zirkle v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 631, 553 
S.E.2d 520 (2001) (defendant stabbed to death his daughter and 
his ex-girlfriend's daughter); Goins v. Commonwealth, 251 Va. 
442, 470 S.E.2d 114 (1996) (defendant killed five people by 
shooting them multiple times with a pistol); Stewart v. 
Commonwealth, 245 Va. 222, 427 S.E.2d 394 (1993) (defendant 
shot his estranged wife and infant son in the head). 
 
7
Hudson's counsel argues that the death penalty is 
disproportionate in this case because there is no evidence of 
prolonged suffering and, therefore, that the acts of murder 
were less heinous than other acts for which the death penalty 
was imposed.  We disagree.  Hudson committed unprovoked 
offenses using "Number 00 Buck" pellets to inflict the maximum 
damage on the three defenseless victims, showing his disregard 
for human life.  See Chichester v. Commonwealth, 248 Va. 311, 
332, 448 S.E.2d 638, 652 (1994); see also Dubois v. 
Commonwealth, 246 Va. 260, 267, 435 S.E.2d 636, 640 (1993).  
As the trial court noted in this case, Hudson committed three 
deliberate, execution-style murders that were "cold-blooded, 
pitiless, [and] senseless slayings."  In conducting the 
proportionality review, we strive "to reach a reasoned 
judgment regarding what cases justify the imposition of the 
death penalty.  Orbe v. Commonwealth, 258 Va. 390, 405, 519 
S.E.2d 808, 817 (1999).  We do not 'insure complete symmetry.'  
Id."  Green v. Commonwealth, 266 Va. 81, 109, 580 S.E.2d 834, 
850 (2003). 
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of 
the trial court. 
Affirmed.
 
8