COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Annunziata, Bumgardner and Frank 

Argued at Salem, Virginia 

COREY LASHAWN WATKINS 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 0584-00-3 JUDGE RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III 

 FEBRUARY 6, 2001 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF DANVILLE 

James F. Ingram, Judge 

S. Jane Chittom, Appellate Defender (Elwood 

Earl Sanders, Jr.; Public Defender 

Commission, on brief), for appellant. 

 Susan M. Harris, Assistant Attorney General 

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

for appellee. 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not 

designated for publication.

Corey Lashawn Watkins was convicted of possession of 

cocaine, impeding a police officer, and two firearms violations: 

(1) possession of a firearm while in possession of cocaine, and 

(2) carrying a concealed weapon. The defendant pled guilty to 

possessing cocaine and impeding a police officer, but he appeals 

his firearms convictions. Finding no error, we affirm. 

Late one night, Danville Police Officer D.W. Arrington was 

on patrol in a neighborhood known for drug activity. Arrington 

saw what appeared to be a drug sale by the defendant. He 

approached the defendant and obtained his identification card. 
As he talked with the defendant, Arrington glimpsed a plastic 

bag in the defendant's mouth. The defendant first denied having 

anything in his mouth, then he grabbed his identification from 

the officer and fled. Arrington called for assistance and 

pursued. 

Officer Robertson responded to the call for backup, spotted 

the defendant, and finally overtook him in a cemetery where he 

had to tackle the defendant to stop him. As they struggled on 

the ground, the defendant jerked his right hand in a manner that 

made Robertson believe he had a weapon. Robertson hit the 

defendant twice, who then blurted out, "Don't hit me. I threw 

the gun down." 

Arrington arrived shortly thereafter and, while handcuffing 

the defendant, asked, "Why did you run?" The defendant replied, 

"I didn't want you to find the gun." The defendant contends the 

statement made to Arrington violated Miranda v. Arizona, 384 

U.S. 436 (1966), and the trial court erred in admitting it and 

the weapon the officers found when they retraced the defendant's 

path. They found the weapon near the place Officer Robertson 

first encountered the defendant. 

If the statement, "I didn't want you to find the gun," was 

obtained in violation of Miranda, its admission was harmless. A 

Miranda violation is subject to harmless error analysis. 

Pearson v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 936, 945, 275 S.E.2d 893, 899 

(1981). In determining whether erroneously admitted evidence is 

- 2 -
harmless, "the reviewing court is to consider a host of factors, 

including the importance of the tainted evidence . . ., whether 

that evidence was cumulative, the presence or absence of 

evidence corroborating or contradicting the tainted evidence on 

material points, and the overall strength of the prosecution's 

case." Lilly v. Commonwealth, 258 Va. 548, 551, 523 S.E.2d 208, 

209 (1999) (citations omitted). 

The defendant's first statement to Robertson, "I threw the 

gun down," conveyed every bit of incriminating information 

contained in the second statement. The statement, "I didn't 

want you to find the gun," was cumulative. It provided no 

additional proof that the defendant possessed a gun and no 

additional information to help the officers locate it. The 

first statement, the evidence surrounding the event, and the 

permissible inferences that arise provide proof beyond a 

reasonable doubt. Any error in admitting the defendant's second 

statement to Arrington was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 

In his second assignment of error the defendant contends 

the trial court erred in denying his motion to strike the 

evidence of possession of a firearm. He argues the statements 

he made were the only evidence that he possessed a firearm. 

With those statements admitted, the defendant's admissions prove 

possession. Accordingly, we affirm the convictions. 

 Affirmed. 

- 3 -