COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Moon, Judge Bray and Retired Judge Trabue*

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia 

MICHAEL E. COOPER, s/k/a 

 MICHAEL EDWARD COOPER 

v. Record No. 0553-94-1 MEMORANDUM OPINION** BY 

 JUDGE RICHARD S. BRAY 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA MAY 30, 1995 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS 

Robert W. Curran, Judge 

 Daniel L. Mitchell (Robert A. Blount & Associates, on 

 brief), for appellant. 

 Monica S. McElyea, Assistant Attorney General (James S. 

 Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. 

 Michael E. Cooper (defendant) was convicted in the trial 

court of "Malicious Bodily Injury to Law Enforcement Officers" 

pursuant to Code § 18.2-51.1. Defendant complains on appeal that 

the evidence was insufficient to prove the requisite malice. We 

disagree and affirm the conviction. 

 Under familiar principles of appellate review, we examine 

the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, 

granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible 

therefrom. Martin v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 438, 443, 358 

S.E.2d 415, 418 (1987). The judgment of a trial court, sitting 

without a jury, is entitled to the same weight as a jury verdict 

and will be disturbed only if plainly wrong or without evidence 

to support it. Id. 

 

 *Retired Judge Kenneth E. Trabue took part in consideration 

of this case by designation pursuant to Code § 17-116.01. 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

 On March 9, 1993, Newport News Police Officers M. E. Horton 

and R. Ronneberg, both in uniform, responded to a "third party" 

report of a domestic dispute. After a brief investigation, 

defendant was arrested for "assault and battery." However, 

before being taken into custody, defendant became uncooperative, 

and "pushed his face up against Ronneberg's face." In an effort 

to restrain him, the officer "bear hug[ged]" defendant and placed 

him "on the ground." However, defendant continued struggling, 

"doing pushups and scratching and trying to get away." When 

Horton "grabbed him in the chest area," defendant "reached out 

and clamped on to [his] arm and just bit as hard as he could." 

Horton "could see the muscles in [defendant's] jaw just clamping 

down," and he "had to pull it out because [defendant] wasn't 

letting it go." Horton described defendant as "crazy, biting 

everything, anything he could get . . . to," including the "metal 

ring" on a flashlight, "causing an indentation." As a result of 

the attack, Horton's "skin was opened up and . . . bleeding," 

bruised and swollen, necessitating hospital treatment, and 

remained scarred at the time of trial. 

 Code § 18.2-51.1 provides, in pertinent part, that 

[i]f any person maliciously causes bodily injury to 

another by any means including the means set out in 

§ 18.2-52, with intent to maim, disfigure, disable or 

kill, and knowing or having reason to know that such 

other person is a law-enforcement officer . . . engaged 

in the performance of his public duties . . ., such 

person shall be guilty of a Class 3 felony. 

Id.

 "'Malice inheres in the doing of a wrongful act intentionally, 
- 3 - 

or without just cause or excuse, or as a result of ill will.'" 

Long v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 194, 198, 379 S.E.2d 473, 475 

(1989) (citation omitted). "Malice is evidenced either when the 

accused acted with a sedate, deliberate mind, and formed design, or 

committed any purposeful and cruel act without any or without great 

provocation." Branch v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 836, 841, 419 

S.E.2d 422, 426 (1992) (citation omitted). Although "[t]he nature 

and extent of the bodily injury . . . may reflect . . . the intent 

with which the injuries were inflicted," these circumstances "are 

not exclusive factors." Campbell v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 476, 

483, 405 S.E.2d 1, 4 (1991) (en banc) (citations omitted). The 

presence of malice is a "'question of fact to be determined by [the 

trier of fact].'" Long, 8 Va. App. at 198, 379 S.E.2d at 476 

(citation omitted). 

 Here, the finding of malice by the trial court was well 

supported by the circumstances attending the attack and the 

resulting injury. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction. 

 Affirmed.