COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judge Clem ents, Senior Judges Willis and Annunziata Argued at Alexandria, Virginia

CHARLES JERMAINE WALKER MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 1406-04-4 JUDG E JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR. NOVEMBER 1, 2005 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT C OURT OF LOUDOUN COUNTY Burke F. McCa hill, Judge Buta Biberaj (Biberaj & Associ ates, PC, on brief), for appellant. (Judith Williams Jagdmann, Atto rney General; Leah A. Darron, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. Appellee submitting on brief.
Charles Jermaine Walker contends on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of assault and battery, in violation of Code § 18.2-57. We affirm th e judgment of the trial court.
BACKGROUND “On appeal, ‘we review the ev idence in the light most fa vorable to the Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom.’” Archer v. Commonwealth , 26 Va. App. 1, 11, 492 S.E.2d 826, 831 (1997) (citation omitted). On September 6, 2002, Walker and his wife engaged in a “heated” argument regarding their son’s discipline. The argument lasted for tw enty to thirty minutes and culminated in his wife’s “basically challeng[ing] [Walker’s] manhood.” Walker grabbed a knife from the “butcher’s block” on the kitchen counter. He turned toward his wi fe, who, seeing the knife,

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.-2- retreated. She began to fall backwards. Walker paused, then continued to ward her. Fearing the knife, she raised her arm as she fell. Upon risi ng, she discovered she had suffered a large cut on her left ring finger. Walker called for emergenc y assistance, reporting he had “cut his wife.” Upon arriving at the residence the police asked, “w here’s the suspect?” Walker replied “I am, I did it.” Walker later claimed he removed the knife from the counter to keep it away from his two-year-old child. He said that while still holding the knife, he reached for his wife in an attempt to keep her from falling. He denied intending to injure her.
ANALYSIS Walker argues that the Commonwealth failed to prove that he intenti onally cut his wife. “An assault and battery is an unlawful touching of another. It is not necessary that the touching result in injury to the person. Whether a touc hing is a battery depends on the intent of the actor, not on the force a pplied.” Gnadt v. Commonwealth , 27 Va. App. 148, 151, 497 S.E.2d 887, 888 (1998). “Intent in fact is the purpose formed in a person’s mind, which may be shown by the circumstances surrounding the offense, includi ng the person’s conduct and his statements. And a person is presumed to intend the immediate, direct, and n ecessary consequences of his voluntary act.” Nobles v. Commonwealth , 218 Va. 548, 551, 23 8 S.E.2d 808, 810 (1977) (citation omitted). The evidence sufficiently established that Walker and his wife engaged in a heated argument, during which she assaulted him both ve rbally and physically. When she impugned his “manhood,” he became enraged, grabbed a knife, turned, and advanced toward her. This supports the finding that he threat ened his wife with the knife. Frightened, she began to retreat and stumbled as she did so. He advanced, reache d out, knife in hand, and cut the hand she raised defensively. Although Walker claimed he was atte mpting to prevent his wife’s fall, he reached out with the knife that he must have known he still held in his hand and with which he had-3- moments earlier threatened her. He made no cl aim of accident in his em ergency call or in his initial conversations with th e police. He simply acknowle dged being the person who had inflicted the injury. This s uggests that the accident claim is a later contrivance. The trial court found Walker’s explanation in credible. In judging w itness credibility, the trier of fact is entitled to disb elieve a defendant’s self-serving te stimony and to conclude that he is lying to conceal his guilt. Marable v. Commonwealth , 27 Va. App. 505, 509-10, 500 S.E.2d 233, 235 (1998). We find no error in the trial court’s credibility determination. The Commonwealth’s evidence was competent, was not inherently incredible, and was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Walk er was guilty of assault and battery. The judgment of the tria l court is affirmed. Affirmed.