COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Coleman, Willis and Bumgardner 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

DAVID LEWIS GOODE, JR. 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 1578-97-2 JUDGE RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III 

 OCTOBER 6, 1998 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHARLOTTE COUNTY 

Charles L. McCormick, III, Judge 

 Maureen L. White (Theodore N. I. Tondrowski, 

on brief), for appellant. 

 H. Elizabeth Shaffer, Assistant Attorney 

General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 A jury convicted David Lewis Goode, Jr. of voluntary 

manslaughter. The defendant appeals contending that the evidence 

is insufficient to prove his guilt. Finding the evidence is 

sufficient to sustain the verdict, we affirm. 

 On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable 

to the Commonwealth and grant to it all reasonable inferences 

fairly deducible therefrom. See Higginbotham v. Commonwealth, 

216 Va. 349, 352, 218 S.E.2d 534, 537 (1975). Voluntary 

manslaughter is the unlawful killing of another without malice, 

while in the heat of passion upon reasonable provocation or 

mutual combat. See Barrett v. Commonwealth, 231 Va. 102, 105-06, 

341 S.E.2d 190, 192 (1986). "[W]hether a killing was done in the 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

heat of passion upon reasonable provocation is a question of 

fact." Canipe v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 629, 643, 491 S.E.2d 

747, 754 (1997) (citation omitted). 

 The evidence shows that a group of people including the 

victim, Daniel Clark, was drinking outside a store in Charlotte 

County. The defendant drove up and parked. His passenger got 

out, went over, and spoke to the victim. The victim then went to 

the defendant's car and got in it. From the point that the 

victim got in the defendant's car, the stories of the witnesses 

vary. The witnesses differed over who was the aggressor and the 

timing and sequence of events. 

 One Commonwealth witness, Joanne Townsend, who was only 

three feet from the car, stated that as soon as the victim sat in 

the car, the defendant raised a gun. The victim knocked it down, 

and the gun discharged as the two fought over it. After the gun 

discharged, the witness accounts converged again. The victim got 

out of the car complaining of a wound to the lower abdomen. He 

bled to death from the single gunshot wound. The other injuries 

inflicted were a small cut over the defendant's eye and seven 

semicircular abrasions to the victim's face. Those abrasions 

could not be caused by a fist. 

 Joanne Townsend's testimony alone would prove the elements 

of the crime. The jury believed it, and it was not contrary to 

human experience or inherently incredible. Great deference is 

given to the fact finder who, having seen and heard the 
- 3 - 

witnesses, assesses their credibility and weighs their testimony. 

See Schneider v. Commonwealth, 230 Va. 379, 382, 337 S.E.2d 735, 

736-37 (1985); Daung Sam v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 312, 318, 

411 S.E.2d 832, 835 (1991). The fact finder's determination that 

a witness is credible "may only be disturbed on appeal if this 

Court finds that [the witness'] testimony was 'inherently 

incredible, or so contrary to human experience as to render it 

unworthy of belief.'" Robertson v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 

854, 858, 406 S.E.2d 417, 419 (1991) (quoting Fisher v. 

Commonwealth, 228 Va. 296, 299-300, 321 S.E.2d 202, 204 (1984)). 

 A trial court's judgment will not be disturbed unless it is 

plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. See Code 

§ 8.01-680; Traverso v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 172, 176, 366 

S.E.3d 719, 721 (1988). 

 The defendant argues that he is entitled to an acquittal 

based on justifiable homicide because he retrieved the gun in 

self-defense. See Bailey v. Commonwealth, 200 Va. 92, 96, 104 

S.E.2d 28, 31 (1958). The defendant has the burden of going 

forward with evidence of self-defense, and the jury is entitled 

to accept or reject any testimony offered. See Bridgeman v. 

Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 523, 528, 351 S.E.2d 598, 601 (1986). 

 The defendant told the investigating officer that the victim 

entered the passenger side of his car and had hit him with 

something. The defendant originally claimed that the gunshot 

came from outside the car. After the investigator told him the 
- 4 - 

victim was dead and he had spoken to other witnesses, the 

defendant changed his story. He said that to protect himself he 

reached under his seat and got the gun to frighten the victim. 

He claimed that the victim took the gun from him, they had 

scuffled, the defendant got the gun back, and it fired. 

 The jury did not accept the defendant's version of the 

evidence nor his claim of self-defense. Other evidence permitted 

the jury to find that the defendant was the aggressor, see Lamb 

v. Commonwealth, 141 Va. 481, 488, 126 S.E. 3, 5 (1925), and no 

evidence suggested that he retreated after he provoked the fight. 

See Dodson v. Commonwealth, 159 Va. 976, 979-80, 167 S.E. 260, 

261 (1933) (citation omitted). We hold that the evidence is 

sufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction of voluntary 

manslaughter. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction. 

 Affirmed.