COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Bumgardner and Agee 

Argued at Alexandria, Virginia 

JONATHAN KIM 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 0750-01-4 JUDGE RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III 

 JUNE 4, 2002 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY 

Arthur B. Vieregg, Judge 

 Alexander J. Gordon, Assistant Public 

Defender, for appellant. 

 Eugene Murphy, Assistant Attorney General 

(Randolph A. Beales, Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 

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

designated for publication.

 Jonathan Kim was convicted of driving after being declared 

an habitual offender. He contends the officer did not have 

reasonable suspicion to justify the initial stop for a traffic 

offense. Concluding the trial court properly denied the 

defendant's motion to suppress, we affirm. 

 The arresting officer testified that she observed the 

defendant drive his gold BMW through the parking lot of a 

7-Eleven store to avoid the traffic light at the corner of 

Annadale Road and South Street. After stopping the vehicle for 
evading a traffic light, she determined the defendant was an 

habitual offender. 

 The defendant contends the officer's testimony was not 

credible. The defendant denied he was traveling at the place 

and in the direction the officer described. He argues the 

officer could not have seen what she described because it was 

dark, traffic was heavy, and she made the observations through 

her rearview mirror. The defendant maintains the officer's 

testimony was inconsistent with her prior testimony at the 

preliminary hearing. The officer had testified the stop 

occurred during rush hour traffic and the street had two lanes. 

In fact, the incident occurred at 8:00 p.m. on a Sunday, and 

photographs showed the street had a third, turning lane. 

 Nothing suggests that the officer was incompetent to 

testify because she lacked the ability to observe events, to 

recollect, to communicate, and to understand the questions 

posed. Cross v. Commonwealth, 195 Va. 62, 64, 77 S.E.2d 447, 

449 (1953). If a witness is competent, then the trier of fact 

has sole responsibility for determining the credibility of 

witnesses, the weight accorded their testimony, the inferences 

to be drawn, and resolving conflicts in the evidence. 

Commonwealth v. Taylor, 256 Va. 514, 518, 506 S.E.2d 312, 314 

(1998). 

 The trial judge heard the officer's testimony and her 

explanations for the apparent inconsistencies with her prior 

- 2 -
testimony. The judge viewed photographs of the scene while 

assessing the officer's ability to have seen what she described. 

The trial court found the officer's testimony credible and that 

"she saw him cutting across the 7-Eleven parking lot." It 

concluded the officer had probable cause, "more than reasonable 

suspicion," to stop the defendant. 

 A trial court's factual finding is binding on appeal and 

will not be disturbed unless it is plainly wrong or without 

evidence to support it. Code § 8.01-680. The record contains 

evidence that the defendant cut through the parking lot to avoid 

a traffic light. The trial court's finding that the officer's 

observations were believable permits the conclusion that the 

arresting officer acted properly when she initially stopped the 

defendant. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction. 

 Affirmed.

 

 

- 3 -