COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judge Annunziata, Senior Judge Duff and Judge Clements∗

Argued at Alexandria, Virginia 

DOMICA CHANTEL WINCKLER 

 OPINION BY 

v. Record No. 1177-99-2 JUDGE ROSEMARIE ANNUNZIATA 

 JULY 18, 2000 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY 

Herbert C. Gill, Jr., Judge 

D. Gregory Carr (Bowen, Bryant, Champlin & 

Carr, on briefs), for appellant. 

Robert H. Anderson, III, Assistant Attorney 

General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, 

on brief), for appellee. 

 ∗

 Judge Jean Harrison Clements took part in the 

consideration of this case by designation, pursuant to Code 

§ 17.1-400, recodifying Code § 17-116.01. 

Domica Winckler appeals from her conviction of capital 

murder, arising from the July 27, 1997 robbery and murder of 

Stacy Hanna. Winckler contends 1) the trial court erred in 

refusing to instruct the jury that to support a conviction for 

capital murder, robbery must have been a motivating factor in 

the killing of Hanna; and 2) the Commonwealth offered 

insufficient evidence to prove capital murder under the theory 

of "murder committed in the commission of robbery." We find no 

error and affirm. 
- 2 - 

FACTS

We review the evidence pertinent to a defendant's 

challenged jury instruction in the light most favorable to the 

defendant. See Martin v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 524, 526, 

414 S.E.2d 401, 401 (1992) (en banc). On July 4, 1997, Stacy 

Hanna came to the City of Richmond from Lynchburg and moved into 

an apartment on Belmont Avenue, which she shared with Dana 

Vaughn, Robin Thurkill, Kelly Tibbs, and occasionally Tracy 

Bitner. Winckler lived nearby and was part of the social circle 

that included Hanna and her apartment mates. These women were 

all lesbians. Bitner and Tibbs previously had been romantically 

involved but had ended the relationship prior to Hanna's arrival 

in Richmond. Soon after Hanna moved into the Belmont Avenue 

apartment, she developed a romantic attachment to Tibbs, but 

Hanna "ended up liking [Tibbs] more than [Tibbs] liked [Hanna]." 

On July 24, 1997, Tibbs and Winckler had a violent altercation 

with Hanna, because Tibbs believed Hanna had lied about a 

romantic relationship between Tibbs and another individual. 

On the afternoon of Saturday, July 26, 1997, Vaughn, Hanna, 

and Tibbs met in the Belmont Avenue apartment with Bitner, 

Winckler, and Stephanie Cull, another member of Hanna's circle 

of friends. Winckler, Tibbs, Bitner, and Cull left in Cull's 

car to pick up Thurkill from her job at a local restaurant. On 

the way to pick up Thurkill, the women began to complain about 
- 3 - 

Hanna's recent fabrications concerning Tibbs, and they agreed 

that "they were going to kick [Hanna's] butt, teach her a lesson 

for lying." Later in the evening, these women, along with Hanna 

and Vaughn, attended a party at a friend's home, during which 

Vaughn fell ill. The group left the party in Cull's car. Cull 

drove the vehicle, while Tibbs and Bitner rode in the front 

seat; Hanna, Vaughn, and Winckler rode in the back. They 

proceeded to Marsh Field in Chesterfield County and parked next 

to a small building. There, all the women exited the car except 

for Hanna and Vaughn, who continued to feel ill. Tibbs 

eventually returned to the car and remained with Vaughn while 

Hanna joined the others, who were standing just a few feet in 

front of the vehicle. The women had decided to give Hanna a 

"butt kicking" for lying about Tibbs. 

Soon after Hanna exited the vehicle and joined Winckler, 

Bitner, and Cull, Tibbs also rejoined the group, leaving Vaughn 

alone in the car. The women walked to the other side of the 

small building, where Tibbs and Winckler began to hit and kick 

Hanna. Bitner also joined in the assault. Bitner, Winckler, 

and Tibbs began to cut Hanna with razor-bladed box cutters. 

Within minutes, Vaughn observed Hanna's back covered with blood. 

Vaughn also saw Winckler strike Hanna with a belt and then throw 

a cinder block on Hanna as she lay on the ground. The assault 

lasted approximately ten minutes, after which Tibbs, Bitner, 
- 4 - 

Cull, and Winckler returned to the car and drove a "couple [of] 

miles" away, leaving Hanna at Marsh Field. When the women 

became concerned that Hanna would report the assault, they 

returned to Marsh Field. They concluded it was necessary to 

kill and "get rid of" Hanna. 

Upon returning to Marsh Field, Cull told the other women to 

put Hanna in the trunk of the car because Hanna "was going to 

get blood everywhere." Winckler and Tibbs did so despite 

Hanna's pleas to be allowed to ride in the passenger 

compartment. The women drove away from the scene for a second 

time, with Hanna striking the interior of the trunk with her 

hands. In response to Hanna's banging on the trunk, Cull 

stopped the car; Winckler got out and opened the trunk. Hanna 

asked to be taken to a telephone so she could call her mother; 

Winckler said "no," shut the trunk and got back in the car. 

The women continued driving and discussed whether they 

should take Hanna to a hospital. Winckler and Bitner opposed 

doing so, fearing Hanna would report their actions. Bitner 

stated that Hanna's "tongue needed to be cut out" so she could 

not report them; Winckler stated that Hanna's "fingers need[ed] 

to be cut off" so she could not make a written report. Cull 

stopped the car along an unidentified back road. All the women 

except Vaughn got out and opened the trunk for a second time. 
- 5 - 

By this time, Hanna was "bleeding really bad." Winckler 

demanded Hanna's rings and watch. Hanna refused at first but 

finally complied, asking that she be allowed to keep one ring. 

Winckler refused. During this stop, Cull cut Hanna on the leg 

with a box cutter and at least one of the women spat on her. 

After they sealed Hanna in the trunk again, they drove on. 

The group finally arrived at Nash Road, where they got 

Hanna out of the trunk and walked her down the deserted road. 

Cull cut Hanna on the back with a box cutter, and Hanna fell to 

the ground. Bitner, Tibbs, and Winckler dragged her 

approximately 100 yards further and there stopped to remove 

Hanna's clothes, which belonged to Tibbs. Winckler stabbed 

Hanna in the chest with a box cutter and held her in the mud 

while Bitner slit Hanna's throat with another box cutter. 

Winckler and Bitner returned to the car, Tibbs remaining with 

Hanna for a few more minutes. Once back at the car, Bitner 

boasted that she had cut Hanna's throat, stuffed mud in her 

mouth, and stabbed Hanna "near the heart saying I want your 

heart bitch, give me your heart, why won't you die." Winckler 

admitted she stabbed Hanna "over and over again" as well, and 

Tibbs said she had "stuck a stick" in Hanna's chest. Once the 

women returned to the car, they left the scene. As they drove 

away, Winckler announced that if any of them reported what had 
- 6 - 

just happened, "the same thing could happen to them." The women 

disposed of Hanna's blood-stained clothes and other evidence in 

a trash receptacle near Matchpoint Apartments, then returned to 

the Belmont Avenue apartment and cleaned themselves. Tibbs 

later told Vaughn that one of them had carved the word "liar" in 

Hanna's back. 

On Sunday, July 27, 1997, City of Richmond and Chesterfield 

County police officers went to the Belmont Avenue apartment to 

investigate and later took the women to the Richmond police 

department for questioning. Chesterfield County Detective Rick 

Mormando interviewed Winckler and taped her statement. During 

the interview, Mormando recovered Hanna's watch from Winckler's 

wrist, and Winckler admitted taking it from Hanna while Hanna 

was in the trunk of Cull's car. Winckler told Mormando that 

when she and the other women had opened the trunk for the second 

time on the previous night, she told Hanna, whom she described 

as "scared sh--less," to "give me your watch, [and] give me your 

rings." When asked why she took the watch, Winckler replied, "I 

don't know. I just liked it." She stated that Hanna was 

physically incapable of resisting when Winckler demanded the 

watch and rings. She further stated that Hanna only surrendered 

the watch and rings because "she was scared sh—-less that [I 
- 7 - 

was] going to do something else to her." Winckler told Mormando 

that she and the other women had already decided to kill Hanna 

when they drove to Nash Road. She also confessed that she 

stabbed Hanna in the chest and "tried to push her face in the 

mud . . . to suffocate her . . . ." 

On January 14, 1998, a jury found Winckler guilty of 

robbery, abduction, and capital murder. The jury fixed her 

sentence at thirty years incarceration for the robbery 

conviction, ten years incarceration for the abduction 

conviction, and death for the capital murder conviction. The 

trial court set aside the death sentence and imposed a sentence 

of imprisonment for life on the capital murder conviction. This 

appeal followed. 

Winckler contends: 1) the trial court erred by refusing to 

instruct the jury that, to convict Winckler of capital murder, 

robbery must have been a "motivating factor" for the killing; 

and 2) the evidence was insufficient to prove that robbery 

motivated Winckler to kill Hanna and the trial court, therefore, 

should either have struck the Commonwealth's evidence on the 

capital murder charge or set aside Winckler's conviction for 

capital murder. 
- 8 - 

JURY INSTRUCTION ON CAPITAL MURDER

Winckler proffered two jury instructions on capital murder,1

which the trial court refused.2 Winckler contends the court's 

 1

 Code § 18.2-31 defines capital murder. The statute 

provides, in pertinent part: 

The following offenses shall constitute 

capital murder, punishable as a Class 1 

felony: 

* * * * * * * 

4. The willful, deliberate and premeditated 

killing of any person in the commission of 

robbery or attempted robbery. 

2

 The instructions were as follows: 

Instruction A: 

The defendant is charged with the crime of 

capital murder. The Commonwealth must prove 

beyond a reasonable doubt each of the 

following elements of that crime: 

1. That Stacy Hanna was killed; and 

 2. That the killing was willful, 

 deliberate, and premeditated; and 

 3. That the killing occurred during the 

 commission of a robbery; and 

4. That Domica Winckler killed Stacy Hanna. 

If you find from the evidence that the 

Commonwealth has proved beyond a reasonable 

doubt each of the above elements of the 

offense as charged, then you shall find the 

defendant guilty and shall not fix the 

punishment until your verdict has been 

returned and further evidence is heard by 

you. 

If you find that the Commonwealth has failed 

to prove beyond a reasonable doubt any one 

or more of the elements of the offense, then 
- 9 - 

ruling constituted reversible error, arguing that the two 

proffered instructions were necessary and proper statements of 

applicable law requiring the Commonwealth to prove that robbery 

was a motivating factor for the homicide in order to sustain a 

conviction of capital murder. 

The issues raised on appeal are identical to those in our 

recent decision in Tibbs v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 687, 525 

S.E.2d 579 (2000), which governs this case. In Tibbs, we held 

that to support a capital murder conviction under Code 

§ 18.2-31(4), the Commonwealth was not required to prove the 

robbery was a motivating factor for the homicide that was 

committed. See id. at 705, 525 S.E.2d at 587-88. Rather, a 

conviction for capital murder will be sustained on appeal where 

"sufficient evidence [is] presented from which the fact finder 

can conclude that the killing and robbery were 'interdependent 

 

you shall find the defendant not guilty of 

capital murder. 

Instruction B: 

The [c]ourt instructs the jury that "murder 

in the commission of robbery" is a killing 

which takes place before, during, or after 

the robbery, and is so closely related 

thereto in time, place, and causal 

connection as to make the killing part of 

the same criminal enterprise as the robbery. 

The Commonwealth must also prove that the 

robbery was a motivating factor for the 

killing. 
- 10 - 

objects of a common criminal design.'" Id. at 706, 525 S.E.2d 

at 588 (quoting Edmonds v. Commonwealth, 229 Va. 303, 310, 329 

S.E.2d 807, 813, cert. denied, 474 U.S. 975 (1985)). 

Based on our decision in Tibbs and the case law which 

underlies it, we find that the proposed instructions misstated 

the law and that the trial court did not err in refusing to 

instruct the jury that robbery must have been a motivating 

factor for Hanna's murder. 

SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE TO PROVE CAPITAL MURDER

"In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence on appeal, 'the 

appellate court must examine the evidence and all inferences 

reasonably deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to 

the Commonwealth, the prevailing party in the trial court.'" 

Taylor v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 54, 64, 521 S.E.2d 293, 298 

(1999) (en banc) (quoting Commonwealth v. Jenkins, 255 Va. 516, 

521, 499 S.E.2d 263, 265 (1998)). We find the evidence 

sufficient to support Winckler's conviction of capital murder. 

"Murder in the commission of a robbery is a killing which 

takes place before, during, or after the robbery and is so 

closely related thereto in time, place, and causal connection as 

to make the killing part of the same criminal enterprise as the 

robbery." George v. Commonwealth, 242 Va. 264, 277-78, 411 

S.E.2d 12, 20 (1991) (citations omitted). As noted in Tibbs, to 

sustain a conviction for capital murder, "sufficient evidence 
- 11 - 

must be presented from which the fact finder can conclude that 

the killing and robbery were 'interdependent objects of a common 

criminal design.'" 31 Va. App. at 706, 525 S.E.2d at 588. 

Where the defendant is motivated by the dual purpose of robbing 

the victim and committing another felonious act against the 

victim that results in death, the robbery and murder are parts 

of the same criminal enterprise. See George, 242 Va. at 280, 

411 S.E.2d at 21-22. The defendant’s possession of some "fruit 

of the robbery" may show "conclusively that the violence against 

[the victim] and the trespass to his [property]" are "so closely 

related in time, place, and causal connection as to make the 

killing, as a matter of law, a part of the same criminal 

enterprise [as the robbery]." Briley v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 

532, 544, 273 S.E.2d 48, 55-56 (1980) (citations omitted). 

We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth. See Taylor, 31 Va. App. at 64, 521 S.E.2d at 298. 

Winckler does not deny her participation in Hanna's murder. She 

concedes that she was motivated at the outset of the evening to 

cause grievous physical harm to Hanna. In the course of that 

evening, as Winckler and her cohorts were transporting the weak 

and badly injured Hanna to the site where they planned to kill 

her, the group stopped, opened the trunk of the car, and 

Winckler demanded that Hanna surrender her watch and jewelry. 

Hanna protested, but her will was overborne by Winckler due to 
- 12 - 

Hanna's state of helplessness and terror. Winckler then sealed 

Hanna in the trunk again and the group continued on to the 

location where they murdered her. 

Hanna's helplessness and intimidation were the direct 

result of the initial assault committed by Winckler, Tibbs, and 

Bitner. Her helpless and intimidated state was magnified and 

exacerbated by her confinement in the trunk of Cull's car, from 

which she pleaded to be released. Winckler's demand for and 

acquisition of Hanna's property took advantage of Hanna's 

extremely debilitated condition, which Winckler had helped to 

create. In addition, Winckler and her companions attempted to 

conceal their crimes of assault and battery and robbery by 

taking the helpless and terrified Hanna to a deserted location 

and murdering her. Winckler was found soon after the murder in 

possession of a "fruit of the robbery," viz. Hanna's watch. 

Possession of the "fruit of the crime," together with the other 

evidence in the case, may show "conclusively that the violence 

against [the victim] and the trespass to [her property]" were 

"so closely related in time, place, and causal connection as to 

make the killing, as a matter of law, a part of the same 

criminal enterprise [as the robbery]." Briley, 221 Va. at 544, 

273 S.E.2d at 55-56. 

Based upon this record, we find the jury had sufficient 

evidence upon which to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that 
- 13 - 

the robbery and murder were interdependent objects of a common 

criminal design, and, accordingly, to find Winckler guilty of 

capital murder. For the reasons stated in this opinion, we 

affirm Winckler's conviction. 

 Affirmed.