COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Moon, Senior Judges Duff and Hodges 

JERMEL RODNEY DAVIS, a/k/a 

 RODNEY JERMEL DAVIS 

v. Record No. 1599-94-3 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

 CHIEF JUDGE NORMAN K. MOON 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA AUGUST 15, 1995 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF LYNCHBURG 

Mosby G. Perrow, III, Judge 

 Elizabeth P. Murtagh, Assistant Public 

Defender (Office of the Public Defender, on 

brief), for appellant. 

 Michael T. Judge, Assistant Attorney General 

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

brief), for appellee. 

 Jermel Rodney Davis appeals his bench trial convictions of 

attempted murder and use of a firearm in the commission of 

attempted murder arguing that the evidence was insufficient to 

support his convictions. We hold that the testimony that Davis 

discharged a firearm in the direction of Jones was sufficient to 

prove the specific intent required for his conviction of 

attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder. 

Therefore, we affirm the convictions. 

 During the early morning hours of February 20, 1994, Davis 

patronized an establishment by the name of "The Underground" on 

Memorial Avenue in Lynchburg. At closing, security officers, 

while clearing the parking lot adjacent to the club, heard Davis 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

"ranting and raving" about "going on a mission," and "being tired 

of people messing with him." The officers heard Davis say, "I'm 

the mother fucking man, fuck security, fuck the police." 

 Hearing these statements, one officer followed Davis across 

the parking lot. As he did so, the officer noticed something 

shiny in Davis's hand and yelled to his supervisor that Davis had 

a gun. At that time, Craig Jones, another uniformed security 

officer, pulled up and got out of his car. Jones approached 

Davis and told him to drop his weapon and place his hands on top 

of his head. Davis did not comply and started walking backwards, 

away from Jones. Again, Jones told Davis to drop his weapon and 

place his hands on top of his head. This time, Davis pointed the 

gun at Jones and fired a shot. Jones ducked behind his car and 

heard Davis fire three more shots before he stood and returned a 

single shot which struck Davis in the leg. Davis fell to the 

ground but immediately stood and fled on foot. The officers were 

unable to stop Davis who disappeared behind an adjacent business. 

 In characterizing the intent required for a conviction 

of attempted murder, the Supreme Court has said: 

 To commit murder one need not intend to 

take life; but to be guilty of an attempt to murder, he 

must so intend. It is not sufficient that his act, had 

it been fatal, would have been murder. 

Merritt v. Commonwealth, 164 Va. 653, 662, 180 S.E. 395, 399 

(1935). 

 The Commonwealth "must prove beyond a reasonable doubt 
- 3 - 

both the act and the mental state. Sufficient proof of 

one element, but not the other, will result in 

reversal." . . . Intent or mental state is subjective, 

but it may, and usually must, be proven objectively 

from the circumstances. 

Harrell v. Commonwealth, 11 Va. App. 1, 7, 396 S.E.2d 680, 682 

(1990)(other citations omitted). 

 The circumstances from which intent may be proven include 

such things as a person's statements or conduct, and "[a] 

person's conduct may be measured by its natural and probable 

consequences. The finder of fact may infer that a person intends 

the natural and probable consequences of his acts." Campbell v. 

Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 476, 484, 405 S.E.2d 1, 4 (1991). "The 

inferences to be drawn from proven facts, so long as they are 

reasonable, are within the province of the trier of fact." 

Johnson v. Commonwealth, 209 Va. 291, 295, 163 S.E.2d 570, 574 

(1968). Moreover, the Supreme Court has stated that the intent 

to kill may be inferred from the mere drawing of a gun. Martin 

v. Commonwealth, 242 Va. 1, 7, 406 S.E.2d 15, 18 (1991). 

 Applying the above principles, we hold that the testimony 

about Davis's statements and conduct outside the club could be 

inferred to establish his hostile state of mind towards the 

security personnel at the time he aimed and discharged a gun in 

the direction of Jones. This evidence coupled with the evidence 

that Davis drew his gun and fired in the direction of Jones was 

sufficient to support a finding that Davis intended to kill 

Jones. 

 Affirmed.