COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Bray and Senior Judge Hodges 

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia 

McQUAY JOHN KIAH 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 2506-95-1 BY JUDGE JOSEPH E. BAKER 

 NOVEMBER 5, 1996 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK 

Luther C. Edmonds, Judge 

 Wesley A. Murphy for appellant. 

 Leah A. Darron, Assistant Attorney General 

(James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 McQuay John Kiah (appellant) appeals from his bench trial 

convictions for malicious wounding, threatening to kill his wife, 

and assaulting his eight-and-one-half-month-old son in violation 

of Code § 18.2-57.2. As the parties are familiar with the facts, 

we recite only those necessary to an understanding of this 

opinion. Upon familiar principles, we state the evidence in the 

light most favorable to the Commonwealth, granting to it all 

reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. Higginbotham 

v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 349, 352, 218 S.E.2d 534, 537 (1975). 

 Appellant and Mary Hoskins (Hoskins) were married and lived 

together with their eight-and-one-half-month-old son (the baby) 

on the first floor of a home co-owned by appellant and his 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

mother. Tenants rented the rooms on the second floor of the 

house. 

 On Sunday morning, May 7, 1995, appellant struck Hoskins in 

the face. Hoskins tried to flee the room with the baby in her 

arms as appellant grabbed a knife and repeatedly stated, "I'm 

going to kill you, you Bitch." Hoskins screamed for help and ran 

up the steps toward a neighbor's apartment. Appellant grabbed 

her from behind, and she fell down the steps with the baby in her 

arms. Hoskins later determined that the baby had a black eye, 

bruised ribs, and was bleeding from his mouth. 

 A neighbor took the baby from Hoskins. When Hoskins 

returned downstairs, appellant repeatedly kicked Hoskins in the 

stomach while he continued to state, "I'm going to kill you, you 

whore, you slut, you bitch . . . . " Appellant grabbed Hoskins 

and threw her out the door, causing her to strike her head and 

shoulder on the concrete porch. Thereafter, appellant entered 

his minivan and tried to run over Hoskins. 

 Police Officer Sugars (Sugars) responded to a call and 

arrived at the scene to find appellant proceeding to his vehicle 

which was on the grass. Sugars watched him drive across the 

grass and down the sidewalk. Sugars ordered appellant to stop, 

but he refused until his path was blocked by another vehicle. 

Sugars asked what was the problem and appellant responded, "Fuck 

you. You don't have anything to do with this. I kicked my 

wife's ass. So what. What are you going to do about it?" 
- 3 - 

Appellant then moved toward his wife. Sugars intervened and 

handcuffed appellant to subdue him. 

 Appellant testified that his actions were only to repel 

Hoskins' assault on him with a knife. He denied Sugars' 

testimony and offered a witness to support his claim. The trial 

court rejected the defense testimony. 

 Hoskins testified that her skull was fractured which caused 

swelling, blackouts, and nausea. She said she sustained a 

sprained or broken ankle, a dislocated shoulder, bruised ribs, 

torn stomach muscles, and bruised kidneys. Initially, she sought 

treatment for her injuries at Sentara Bayside Hospital. 

 On cross-examination, over the Commonwealth's objection, the 

defense was allowed to ask Hoskins to testify from her Sentara 

Bayside Hospital records. When asked by the defense why the 

doctor at Sentara Bayside Hospital saw none of Hoskins' alleged 

injuries, Hoskins responded that there were three different 

doctors who saw her, that appellant's counsel was referring to 

only one doctor's report, and that counsel did not have all of 

her records. 

 On redirect, Hoskins testified that she immediately left 

town after the beating, to live in Kentucky. She stated that 

because she was experiencing blackouts and dizziness she went to 

a hospital in Kentucky on May 18 and 26, 1995. Appellant 

objected to the Kentucky medical records introduced by the 

Commonwealth because they were photocopies, not originals or 
- 4 - 

certified copies, and because the records had been in the 

possession of Hoskins and may have been altered. The trial court 

admitted the copies of the Kentucky records. Appellant contends 

that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting those 

records and that their admission was not harmless. We have 

reviewed the Kentucky records and find that the vast majority of 

information purportedly contained therein is illegible. 

Accordingly, we cannot assign any reasonable evidentiary value to 

the documents. For that reason, assuming without deciding that 

those documents were improperly admitted, such error was harmless 

beyond a reasonable doubt. 

 Appellant further contends that the evidence was 

insufficient to support the convictions. We disagree. Viewed in 

the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the evidence 

clearly supports the trial court's finding that appellant 

intentionally assaulted and battered Hoskins and the baby. See

Hargrave v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 436, 437, 201 S.E.2d 597, 598 

(1974). The fact finder could reasonably infer from the evidence 

that appellant maliciously intended the natural consequences of 

his act. Kelly v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 359, 373-75, 382 

S.E.2d 270, 278-79 (1989). 

 Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

 Affirmed.