COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Elder and Lemons 

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia 

BARBARA ANN CUFFEE 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 2589-97-1 JUDGE JAMES W. BENTON, JR. 

 SEPTEMBER 22, 1998 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK 

William F. Rutherford, Judge 

 Allan D. Zaleski (Weisberg & Zaleski, on 

brief), for appellant. 

 Steven A. Witmer, Assistant Attorney General 

(Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on brief), 

for appellee. 

 Barbara Ann Cuffee was indicted and tried by a jury on 

charges of malicious wounding committed as a part of a mob, see

Code § 18.2-41, and malicious wounding of a law enforcement 

officer, see Code § 18.2-51.1. The jury convicted Cuffee of 

assault and battery. On this appeal, Cuffee contends that the 

trial judge erred in refusing three jury instructions. Two of 

the instructions concern self-defense, and the third addresses 

witness credibility. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the 

conviction. 

 I. 

 At trial, the Commonwealth's evidence proved that Police 

Officers Dahl and Mitcheltree responded to a call for assistance 

from Jody Gifford, an animal control officer, who was at an 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

elementary schoolyard attempting to apprehend a stray dog. 

Gifford observed a boy running with the dog through the crowd and 

behind the school. When Gifford and Officer Dahl detained the 

boy, a large group of people who were using the basketball courts 

and recreation area began yelling and cursing at the officers. 

Officer Dahl told the crowd to "Shut up." Cuffee, whom Officer 

Dahl identified as having been one of the persons screaming and 

cursing at her, responded "What are you talking to those kids 

that way for?" 

 After Officer Dahl sat in her vehicle with the boy, she 

heard an adult male say, "If she gets out of the car again, let's 

just kick her ass." Officer Dahl testified that she exited the 

car and said, "Did somebody say they wanted to kick my ass?" She 

then approached Cuffee to have a conversation with her. Cuffee, 

whom Officer Dahl believed was leading the crowd, told Officer 

Dahl to "get out of her face." Officer Dahl responded "I'm not 

in your face." 

 Cuffee's daughter then intervened. Officer Dahl testified 

that Cuffee's daughter approached her and said, "bitch, you best 

get out of my mama's face or I'm going to kick your ass." As 

Officer Dahl turned to face Cuffee's daughter, Cuffee's daughter 

hit Officer Dahl. When Officer Dahl grabbed Cuffee's daughter to 

arrest her for assault, a general melee occurred. Officer Dahl 

testified that Cuffee threatened to kill her, choked her, and 

pushed her backwards. 
- 3 - 

 Cuffee disputed much of Officer Dahl's testimony. She 

testified that after Officer Dahl yelled at the children to "shut 

up" and put the boy in her vehicle, someone in the crowd said, "I 

ought to beat that bitch's ass." Officer Dahl exited her 

vehicle, unlatched her gun, and approached Cuffee. Cuffee told 

Officer Dahl she didn't know why Officer Dahl unlatched her gun 

and approached her. She also testified that she admonished 

Officer Dahl for "talking to the kids . . . nasty" and 

challenging the children who wanted to "beat [her] ass" to come 

forward. Officer Dahl responded by pointing her finger in 

Cuffee's face and loudly saying that she was challenging the 

children because "she wanted to." 

 Cuffee testified that when her daughter told Officer Dahl to 

get out of Cuffee's face, Officer Dahl grabbed Cuffee's daughter, 

tried to "sling her," and struck Cuffee's daughter in the face. 

The fight then began. Cuffee, fearing for her daughter's safety 

and trying to stop the fight, grabbed her daughter and pinned her 

against a vehicle. Cuffee testified that as Officer Dahl swung 

over Cuffee to hit Cuffee's daughter, Officer Mitcheltree pulled 

Cuffee away and told her she was under arrest. Officer 

Mitcheltree made Cuffee place her hands on the police car. 

 Cuffee further testified that a bystander broke up the fight 

between Officer Dahl and Cuffee's daughter. However, as the 

bystander was walking her daughter away, Officer Dahl attacked 

the daughter again. Cuffee jumped in front of Officer Dahl, 
- 4 - 

grabbed her uniform "with no force," and pushed her back away 

from Cuffee's daughter. Cuffee testified that she grabbed 

Officer Dahl around the neck because Officer Dahl punched Cuffee 

in the face. Other witnesses supported Cuffee's version of the 

events. 

 At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial judge refused 

three of Cuffee's proposed jury instructions. Instruction B 

provided the following statement on self-defense: 

 In passing upon the danger, if any, to which 

the Defendant, Barbara Cuffee[,] perceived, 

you will consider the circumstances as they 

reasonably appeared to her, and draw such 

conclusions from these circumstances as she 

could reasonably have drawn, situated as she 

was at the time; and the Court instructs you 

that the Defendant, Barbara Cuffee, is 

entitled to be tried and judged by the facts 

and circumstances as they reasonably appeared 

to her. 

Instruction C, also on the issue of self-defense, recited as 

follows: 

 A person has the right to use reasonable 

force to stop another who manifestly intends 

and endeavors by violence or surprise to 

commit an assault on his or her family. 

Instruction D concerning witness credibility provided as follows: 

 Although one or more witnesses may positively 

testify as to an alleged fact and although 

the said testimony may not be contradicted by 

other witnesses, the jury may altogether 

disregard said testimony if you believe the 

same to be untrue. 

 The jury acquitted Cuffee of malicious wounding as part of a 

mob and convicted Cuffee of assault and battery, a 

lesser-included offense of the charge of malicious wounding of 
- 5 - 

the officer. On the jury's recommended sentence of three months 

in jail and a $2,500 fine, the trial judge entered judgment on 

that verdict. 
- 6 - 

 II. 

 "A reviewing court's responsibility in reviewing jury 

instructions is 'to see that the law has been clearly stated and 

that the instructions cover all issues which the evidence fairly 

raises.'" Darnell v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 485, 488, 370 

S.E.2d 717, 719 (1988) (citation omitted). Thus, when the 

evidence is conflicting, "we must view the evidence with respect 

to the refused instruction in the light most favorable to the 

appellant." Caudill v. Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 81, 85, 497 

S.E.2d 513, 514 (1998). However, the principle is well 

established that "[w]hen granted instructions fully and fairly 

cover a principle of law, a trial [judge] does not abuse [his] 

discretion in refusing another instruction related to the same 

legal principle." Stockton v. Commonwealth, 227 Va. 124, 145, 

314 S.E.2d 371, 384 (1984). 

 The trial judge instructed the jury as follows on the law of 

self-defense: 

 If you believe from the evidence that the 

defendant was to some degree at fault in 

provoking or bringing on the fight, and if 

you further believe that when attacked: 

 (1) she retreated as far as she 

safely could under the 

circumstances 

 (2) in a good faith attempt to 

abandon the fight; and 

 (3) made known her desire for peace 

by word or act; and 

 (4) she reasonably feared, under 

the circumstances as they appeared 
- 7 - 

to her, that her daughter was in 

danger of bodily harm; and 

 (5) she used no more force that was 

reasonably necessary to protect her 

daughter from the threatened harm, 

then you shall find the defendant 

not guilty; 

and, 

 If you believe from the evidence that the 

defendant was without fault in provoking or 

bringing on the fight, and that the defendant 

reasonably feared, under the circumstances as 

they appeared to her, that her daughter was 

in danger of harm, then the defendant had the 

right to use such force as was reasonably 

necessary to protect her daughter from the 

threatened harm. If you further believe that 

the defendant used no more force than was 

reasonably necessary to protect her daughter 

from the threatened harm, then you shall find 

the defendant not guilty. 

 Cuffee argues that although those instructions accurately 

state the relevant legal principles, they do not instruct the 

jury on "her version of the case." We disagree. The 

instructions that were given to the jury fully and fairly 

informed the jury of each principle that is contained in the two 

self-defense instructions proposed by Cuffee and refused by the 

trial judge. Accordingly, the trial judge did not err in 

refusing Cuffee's Instructions B and C. See Willis v. 

Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 430, 444, 393 S.E.2d 405, 412 (1990). 

 The trial judge also refused Cuffee's Instruction D in favor 

of another instruction concerning credibility of the witnesses. 

The trial judge instructed the jury as follows: 

 You are the judges of the facts, the 

credibility of the witnesses, and the weight 
- 8 - 

of the evidence. You may consider the 

appearance and manner of the witnesses on the 

stand, their intelligence, their opportunity 

for knowing the truth and for having observed 

the things about which they testified, their 

interest in the outcome of the case, their 

bias, and, if any have been shown, their 

prior inconsistent statements, or whether 

they have knowingly testified untruthfully as 

to any material fact in the case. 

 You may not arbitrarily disregard 

believable testimony of a witness. However, 

after you have considered all the evidence in 

the case, then you may accept or discard all 

or part of the testimony of a witness as you 

think proper. 

 You are entitled to use your common sense 

in judging any testimony. From these things 

and all the other circumstances of the case, 

you may determine which witnesses are more 

believable and weigh their testimony 

accordingly. 

 While Cuffee's Instruction D would have explicitly informed 

the jury that uncontradicted testimony of several witnesses 

concerning a fact may be disregarded if the jury believed the 

testimony to be untrue, the instruction that was given to the 

jury does recite the same principle, albeit in a more general 

manner. We are mindful that "[a] person accused of a crime is 

entitled to instructions which present the grounds of [her] 

defense from [her] point of view." Wade v. Commonwealth, 202 Va. 

117, 123-24, 116 S.E.2d 99, 104 (1960). However, we find no 

basis in the record to conclude that the trial judge's use of the 

more general statement of the principle was prejudicial to 

Cuffee. 

 Accordingly, we affirm the conviction. 
- 9 - 

 Affirmed.