COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Coleman, Bumgardner and Lemons 

Argued at Salem, Virginia 

CHARLES ANTHONY JONES 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 0977-98-3 JUDGE DONALD W. LEMONS 

 FEBRUARY 23, 1999 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY 

William N. Alexander, II, Judge 

 Jesse W. Meadows, III, for appellant. 

 Ruth M. McKeaney, Assistant Attorney General 

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

for appellee. 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code § 17-116.010, 

this opinion is not designated for publication.

 Charles Anthony Jones was convicted of threatening to burn 

the house trailer of his estranged wife, Angela White Jones, in 

violation of Code § 18.2-83. On appeal he argues that the 

evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. We disagree 

and affirm the conviction. 

 On July 23, 1997, Jones went to his wife’s trailer to confer 

with her over a theft of their children’s bicycles. The 

estranged couple engaged in a heated argument with both parties 

yelling at one another. The wife demanded that Jones leave the 

premises, and he responded by threatening to "burn the house 

down." Jones denied making the threat; however, the trial court 

resolved the issue of credibility against him. 
- 2 - 

 When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on 

appeal, the evidence is viewed "in the light most favorable to 

the Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly 

deducible therefrom." Welch v. Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 518, 

523, 425 S.E.2d 101, 105 (1992). The credibility of witnesses 

and the weight accorded their testimony are matters solely for 

the trier of fact who has the opportunity to see and hear the 

witnesses. Schneider v. Commonwealth, 230 Va. 379, 382, 337 

S.E.2d 735, 736-37 (1985). The decision of the trial court will 

not be disturbed unless plainly wrong or unless there is 

insufficient evidence to support it. Code § 8.01-680. 

 Code § 18.2-83 provides that "[a]ny person . . . who makes 

and communicates to another by any means any threat to bomb, 

burn, destroy or in any manner damage any place of assembly, 

building or other structure, . . . shall be guilty of a Class 5 

felony." We have previously stated that in order to sustain a 

conviction under this statute, the communication must be taken in 

context, must have been maliciously made, and must reasonably 

cause the receiver of the threat to believe that the speaker of 

the threat will act according to his expressed intent. See

Perkins v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 7, 16, 402 S.E.2d 229, 234 

(1991). 

 The state of estrangement of the parties was further 

exacerbated by the wife’s complaints that Jones had forged one of 

her checks and stolen her computer. In the context of criminal 

complaints and angry confrontation, Jones communicated his intent 
- 3 - 
- 4 - 

to burn the structure that served as his wife’s home. There is 

no indication that the statements were made in jest. 

 Jones maintains that because his wife did not report the 

matter to police immediately, his wife could not have reasonably 

believed that he would commit the act. Even if the wife delayed 

in reporting the threat, it is the province of the finder of fact 

to determine if the delay undermined her credibility. See Love 

v. Commonwealth, 18 Va. App. 84, 90, 441 S.E.2d 709, 713 (1994). 

The trial court resolved this issue against Jones. 

 Considering the nature of the estrangement between the 

parties, the existence of criminal allegations by the wife 

against the husband, the hostility of the actual exchange itself, 

and the unequivocal nature of the threat, we cannot say that the 

trial court was wrong or that the evidence was insufficient to 

support the conviction. The conviction is affirmed. 

Affirmed.