COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Elder and Senior Judge Cole 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

DEAN DOBSON 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 0733-96-2 JUDGE JAMES W. BENTON, JR. 

 FEBRUARY 18, 1997 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHARLES CITY COUNTY 

Samuel Taylor Powell, III, Judge 

 C. Thomas Turbeville (Dansby & Turbeville, on 

brief), for appellant. 

 Michael T. Judge, Assistant Attorney General 

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

brief), for appellee. 

 Dean Dobson was convicted of assault and battery. On 

appeal, he contends that the record failed to prove that the 

incident that led to his conviction occurred within the circuit 

court's jurisdiction and that the evidence was insufficient to 

uphold the jury's verdict. Because the record failed to prove by 

direct or circumstantial evidence that the incident occurred in 

the Commonwealth, we reverse the conviction and remand the case. 

 This case comes to this Court upon a written statement of 

facts. See Rule 5A:8(c). In pertinent part, the statement 

recites that at midnight on February 4, 1996, a deputy sheriff 

went to an address in Charles City County and spoke to Bonita 

Monroe outside Dobson's residence. He observed that Monroe had 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

swelling about her cheeks and eyes and that she had bandages over 

cuts in her wrists. Monroe said that she had cut her wrists. 

 The deputy sheriff went inside the residence and spoke with 

Dobson. Dobson, who had been drinking and appeared angry, began 

to verbally abuse the deputy sheriff. The deputy sheriff 

arrested Dobson. The deputy sheriff testified that at the 

magistrate's office Dobson made statements, including "I should 

have killed her" and "Next time, I'll punch her in the eye 

again." 

 As a defense witness, Monroe testified that she had tried to 

cut her wrists and that she and Dobson had argued about her 

attempt to cut her wrists. She testified that Dobson had not 

struck her, that she had no physical injuries other than her cut 

wrists, and that her eyes had swollen because she had been 

crying. Monroe also denied telling the deputy sheriff that 

Dobson had hit her. On rebuttal, the deputy sheriff testified 

that Monroe told him that Dobson had struck her several times. 

 On this evidence, a jury convicted Dobson of assault and 

battery. In Owusu v. Commonwealth, 11 Va. App. 671, 673, 401 

S.E.2d 431, 432 (1991), this Court reiterated the long standing 

principle "that subject matter jurisdiction 'must affirmatively 

appear on the face of the record, that is, the record must show 

affirmatively that the case is one of a class of which the court 

rendering the judgment was given cognizance.'" (Citation 

omitted). We also recognized an equally well established 
- 3 - 

principle that a challenge to the circuit court's subject matter 

jurisdiction may be raised at any time. See id. at 672, 401 

S.E.2d at 431. 

 Neither the direct evidence nor the circumstantial evidence 

proved the place where the assault occurred. No evidence proved 

that it occurred at or near Dobson's residence. "No street 

address, town, or locality was mentioned with respect to the 

location of the offense[]." Id. Furthermore, no evidence tended 

to prove whether it occurred several hours or merely a few 

minutes before the deputy sheriff arrived at Dobson's residence. 

 Moreover, we have recognized that "[t]he mere fact that police 

of a certain jurisdiction investigate a crime cannot support an 

inference that the crime occurred within their jurisdiction." 

Sutherland v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 378, 382, 368 S.E.2d 295, 

297 (1988). 

 We hold, therefore, that the evidence in this record failed 

to prove where the assault occurred -- whether in Charles City 

County, in an adjoining jurisdiction, or even within the 

Commonwealth of Virginia.1

 Accordingly, we must reverse the 

conviction on that ground. See Owusu, 11 Va. App. at 673-74, 401 

S.E.2d at 432. However, we do not reverse the conviction on 

Dobson's claim that the evidence was insufficient to support the 

 

 1Our holding is not based solely on the failure of the 

Commonwealth to prove that the crime occurred in Charles City 

County. That is a question of venue. The issue raised by this 

appeal concerns jurisdiction. The statement of facts does not 

show that the incident occurred in Virginia. 
- 4 - 

conviction. Because the jury was required to make a credibility 

determination in resolving the disputed testimony of the deputy 

sheriff and Monroe concerning whether Dobson struck Monroe, we 

cannot say as a matter of law that the evidence was insufficient 

to support the conviction. See Bridgeman v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. 

App. 523, 528, 351 S.E.2d 598, 601 (1986). 

 The parties agree that the appropriate remedy is to remand 

this case for further proceedings. See also Owusu, 11 Va. App. 

at 674, 401 S.E.2d at 432. 

 Reversed and remanded.