Present: Hassell, C.J., Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, Goodwyn, and 

Millette, JJ., and Lacy, S.J. 

ANTOINE LANIER HALL 

 OPINION BY 

 v. Record No. 100160 JUSTICE CYNTHIA D. KINSER 

 November 4, 2010 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

The defendant, Antoine Lanier Hall, was convicted in a 

bench trial in the Circuit Court for the City of Danville for 

escape "by force or violence" in violation of Code § 18.2-478. 

To be guilty of felonious escape from custody under that 

statute, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt 

that "the accused was in the custody of the police officer, that 

the accused was charged with a criminal offense before he was 

taken into custody, and that the accused escaped from such 

custody by force or violence." Hubbard v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 

292, 295, 661 S.E.2d 464, 466 (2008). Hall only challenges the 

sufficiency of the evidence to prove that he was in the custody 

of a police officer. Finding sufficient evidence to prove that 

Hall was under arrest and therefore in custody prior to his 

escape, we will affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals of 

Virginia, which upheld Hall's conviction. 
I. MATERIAL FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS1

Two uniformed officers with the City of Danville Police 

Department, Andrew R. Norris and Randy Merrill, went to Hall's 

residence in the City of Danville to serve outstanding arrest 

warrants for Hall. According to Officer Norris, he approached 

the residence's front door, while Officer Merrill proceeded to 

the rear of the residence. After knocking on the front door, 

Officer Norris informed a female who came to the door that he 

"was looking for [Hall]." 

Hall then came to the front door, and Officer Norris 

advised Hall that he had a warrant for his arrest and asked him 

to step outside. Hall complied with the request and came out 

onto the front porch. According to Officer Norris, he then 

"grabbed [Hall] by his left wrist[,] told him he was under 

arrest," and directed him "to put his hands behind his back." 

Officer Norris started to handcuff Hall but just before he could 

"latch[]" the handcuff onto Hall's left wrist, Hall commenced to 

struggle with Officer Norris. A scuffle ensued between Officer 

Norris and Hall, which took them from the front porch into the 

 

1

 "As required by established principles of appellate 

review, we will recite the evidence presented at trial in the 

light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party 

in the circuit court, and we will accord the Commonwealth the 

benefit of all inferences fairly deducible from that evidence." 

Stephens v. Commonwealth, 263 Va. 58, 59-60, 557 S.E.2d 227, 228 

(2002). 

2
residence's front yard. All the while, Officer Norris was 

commanding Hall to "stop and put his hands behind his back" and 

was attempting to handcuff Hall, but Hall continued to pull away 

from Officer Norris. Hall eventually wrestled free of Officer 

Norris' grasp, leaving Officer Norris holding onto Hall's shirt. 

When the shirt tore, Hall fled on foot. 

Officer Merrill testified that while he was waiting at the 

rear of Hall's residence, he "heard a loud commotion" and 

"Officer Norris yell, 'You're under arrest. Don't resist me.'" 

Officer Merrill proceeded to the front of the residence, where 

he saw Hall and Officer Norris struggling. According to Officer 

Merrill, "Officer Norris was trying to gain control of [Hall] by 

grabbing his arm [and] shirt." When Officer Norris "lost his 

grip," Hall ran off and both officers chased after him. 

Although Merrill "deployed" a taser gun that caused Hall to fall 

to the ground, the leads apparently pulled out of the cartridge, 

and Hall was able get up and run off. Hall was eventually 

apprehended and charged with felonious escape. 

Hall testified that when he heard Officer Norris at his 

front door talking to his "girlfriend," he went to the door and 

onto the porch. Hall admitted that Officer Norris "grabbed one 

of [his] arms, and . . . pinned it," but stated that his other 

arm remained free. Hall also admitted that Officer Norris 

grabbed his shirt but that he, nevertheless, was able to, and 

3
did, run off. Hall did not recall any handcuffs, being tased, 

or falling down. 

At the close of the Commonwealth's case-in-chief, and again 

after he testified, Hall moved to strike the evidence. Hall 

argued, in part, that the Commonwealth failed to prove he was in 

the custody of Officer Norris. The circuit court denied both 

motions and found Hall guilty of violating Code § 18.2-478. The 

court subsequently sentenced Hall to three years of 

incarceration, with two years and 290 days suspended, and 

supervised probation for a period of 12 months. 

Hall appealed the judgment of conviction to the Court of 

Appeals of Virginia. Relying on White v. Commonwealth, 267 Va. 

96, 591 S.E.2d 662 (2004), the Court of Appeals concluded that 

Officer Norris "arrested Hall by grabbing Hall's wrist and 

informing him he was under arrest," notwithstanding "Hall's 

subsequent actions depriv[ing Officer] Norris of control." Hall 

v. Commonwealth, 55 Va. App. 451, 453-54, 456, 686 S.E.2d 554, 

555, 556 (2009). Because "persons arrested are 'always in 

custody for purposes of applying'" Code § 18.2-478, Hall, 55 Va. 

App. at 456, 686 S.E.2d at 556-57 (quoting White, 267 Va. at 

104, 591 S.E.2d at 667), the Court of Appeals concluded that 

"Hall was properly convicted of escape" and affirmed the circuit 

court's judgment. Id. at 456-57, 686 S.E.2d at 557. We then 

granted this appeal. 

4
II. ANALYSIS 

On appeal, Hall challenges the sufficiency of the evidence 

to sustain his conviction, in particular the holding that Hall 

was in "custody" for purposes of Code § 18.2-478. In deciding 

this question, "[w]e are bound by the trial court's factual 

findings unless those findings are plainly wrong or unsupported 

by the evidence," Malbrough v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 163, 168, 

655 S.E.2d 1, 3 (2008), but, we "review de novo the issue of law 

whether the . . . facts before us establish" that Hall was in 

"custody" within the meaning of Code § 18.2-478. Bristol v. 

Commonwealth, 272 Va. 568, 573, 636 S.E.2d 460, 463 (2006). 

The relevant provisions of Code § 18.2-478 state: "if any 

person lawfully in the custody of any police officer on a charge 

of criminal offense escapes from such custody by force or 

violence, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony."2 Construing 

 2

 In contrast, Code § 18.2-479.1, which makes it unlawful 

for any person to "intentionally prevent[] or attempt[] to 

prevent a law-enforcement officer from lawfully arresting him," 

does not require that such person be in the lawful "custody of 

any police officer." Code § 18.2-478. For purposes of Code 

§ 18.2-479.1, the phrase "intentionally preventing or attempting 

to prevent a lawful arrest" is defined as: 

fleeing from a law-enforcement officer when (i) 

the officer applies physical force to the person, 

or (ii) the officer communicates to the person 

that he is under arrest and (a) the officer has 

the legal authority and the immediate physical 

ability to place the person under arrest, and (b) 

a reasonable person who receives such 

5
the requirement of "custody" found in Code § 18.2-479,3 this 

Court has stated that "the inquiry is whether the officer, with 

proper authority . . . , had by his words or use of physical 

force, curtailed the individual's freedom of movement beyond 

that required for a temporary investigative detention." White, 

267 Va. at 105, 591 S.E.2d at 668. However, "an individual 

under arrest is always in custody for purposes of applying Code 

§ 18.2-479." Id. at 104, 591 S.E.2d at 667. And, an arrest 

"occurs when the officer actually restrains the individual or 

the individual submits to the authority of the officer." Id. at 

104, 591 S.E.2d at 666 (citing Howard v. Commonwealth, 210 Va. 

674, 677, 173 S.E.2d 829, 832 (1970)); accord Bristol, 272 Va. 

at 573, 636 S.E.2d at 463; see also California v. Hodari D., 499 

U.S. 621, 624, 626 (1991) (stating that the common law of arrest 

required either "the mere grasping or application of physical 

force with lawful authority, whether or not [the force] 

succeeded in subduing the arrestee," or "submission to the 

assertion of authority") (emphasis omitted). 

 

communication knows or should know that he is not 

free to leave. 

Id.

3

 We have not previously addressed the meaning of the term 

"custody" as used in Code § 18.2-478. We agree with the Court 

of Appeals' conclusion that the term "custody" has the same 

meaning in Code § 18.2-478 as it has in Code § 18.2-479. See

Hall, 55 Va. App. at 454 n.1, 686 S.E.2d at 555 n.1. 

6
In White, an officer, during a traffic stop, conducted a 

"protective pat-down search" of the defendant and, upon feeling 

"what seemed to [the officer] to be" illegal drugs, questioned 

the defendant about the substance. Id. at 99-100, 591 S.E.2d at 

663-64. Without answering the officer's inquiry, the defendant 

began to struggle with the officer and fled the scene. Id. at 

100, 591 S.E.2d at 664. The defendant was subsequently charged 

with escape from custody in violation of Code § 18.2-479(B). 

Id. At trial, the officer "conced[ed] that [the defendant] was 

not under arrest at the time he conducted the pat-down search." 

Id. at 101, 591 S.E.2d at 664. This Court reversed the 

conviction, holding that the defendant was not in custody 

because the officer "had not yet restrained" the defendant "for 

the purpose of placing him under arrest" "at that propitious 

moment that [the defendant] chose to flee rather than submit to 

[the officer's] authority." Id. at 105-06, 591 S.E.2d at 668. 

Here, Officer Norris went to Hall's residence and advised 

Hall that he had a warrant for his arrest. After directing Hall 

to step onto the front porch, Officer Norris, acting with lawful 

authority, advised Hall that he was under arrest and grabbed 

Hall's left wrist to handcuff him. In other words, Officer 

Norris spoke words of arrest and actually touched Hall for the 

stated purpose of arrest. Thus, at that moment, notwithstanding 

Hall's subsequent flight, the arrest was effected and Hall was 

7
in custody. See id. at 104, 591 S.E.2d at 667 ("[A]n individual 

under arrest is always in custody."). Accordingly, we conclude 

that the evidence was sufficient to prove that Hall was in 

"custody" pursuant to Code § 18.2-478 prior to his forcibly 

wrestling free of Officer Norris' grasp, and that Hall 

"escape[d]" from custody "by force or violence" in violation of 

Code § 18.2-478. 

III. CONCLUSION 

For these reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the Court 

of Appeals. 

Affirmed. 

8