COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Russell, Ortiz and Raphael Argued at Richmond, V irginia

MATTHEW P. SERRI, S/K/A MATTHEW PAUL SERRI MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 0630

- 21

- 2 JUDGE DANIEL E. ORTIZ JUNE 7, 2022 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GREENE COUNTY

Claude V. Worrell, Jr

. , Judge Christopher C. Graham (Eustis & Graham, PC, on brief) , for appellant.
David M. Uberman, Assistant Attorney General ( Mark R. Herring, 1 Attorney General ; Robert H. Anderson, III, Senior Assistant Attorney General, on brief) , for appellee.
Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Greene County, Matthew Paul Serri was
convicted of malicious wounding, in violation of Code § 18.2

- 51 , and burglary, in violation of Code § 18.2

- 89

. Serri asserts that the evidence was insufficient to find him guilty of the offenses. Because the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence through eyewitne ss testimony for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Serri committed the offenses , we affirm.
B ACKGROUND Mark Hinton was at home alone o n the evening of August 8, 2018. Shortly after a n 8:00 p.m. phone call with his niece , Hinton laid down on his living room couch

. He then heard a “real loud boom” echo through his house. A female he knew as Rikki entered the house

. Hinton’s

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1

- 413, this opinion is not designated for publication.

1 Jason S. Miyares succeeded Mark R. Herring as Attorney General on January 15, 2022

. UNPUBLISHED- 2

-

front door had been closed and locked; the evidence ultimately revealed that the door had been
kicked in. Hinton was about to tell Rikki that she did not have to kick his door in, when “all of the sudden” Serri appeared and attacked him. Serri accused Hinton of “ snitch [ ing ] on him ” and told
Hinton to “catch [his] last breat h.” Serri struck Hinton on the head three times with an ash tray.
Hinton raised his hands to block the blows, but Serri hit him several more times with such force that the ash tray stuck to the back of Hinton’s head. Serri then “stomped” on Hinton ’s left leg and bit Hinton’s face , while also pushing Hinton’s face away with his hands . Hinton looked into Serri ’s
eyes as Serri bit him and described Serri as “ a dog t rying to tear a piece of meat off.” Serri flipped Hinton over and put him in a choke hold , while biting him on the back of his neck.
Hinton could not breath e and was weak from losing blood. He prayed out loud , “ Lord help

me. ” Serri responded , “you better call on him cause you’re going to see him tonight.” Hinton felt
that he had “had enough” and “was done

. ” Suddenly, Serri relaxed his grip and said, “tell me where the drugs are and I’ll let you live.” Hinton had no drugs, but he said , “al l right,” stood up , and started to walk toward the hallway as if he were going to retrieve some . When he got close to the
wide

- open front door , Hinton fled the house. After a brief scuffle with Serri outside, Hinton managed to get away and ran to a neighb or’s house to call the police

. After the attack, Serri was seen at a local Walmart by a l oss prevention associate who stood

next to Serri at a register

. The loss prevention associate noticed that Serri had blood on his face,
around his neck , and on his hands. Serri also had a visible cut in one of his eyebrows. Greene County Sheriff’s S ergeant R eade Marchette was sent to Hinton’s house , and when
he arrived , he noticed that the front door was kicked in. Marchette thought he was there to i nvestigate a burglary, but when he entered the house, he knew it was “something more serious”
b ecause he saw a lot of blood. When he went back outside , Marchette met Hinton in the driveway.
Hinton was covered in blood , and he had “ multiple obvious traumas ” to his head, face, and- 3

-

shoulders , including a large bite mark on his left cheek. Hinton told Marchette that he was attacked by a male and female who thought he had “ snitched ” on them. Hinton would not tell Marchette
their names.
Hinton sustai ned numerous injuries from Serri ’s attack. He had multiple lacerations on his
face , scalp, forehead , and eyelid. Both his eyes were bruised. He also had blood in his mouth and throat and multiple bite marks and lacerations on his skin. Additionally, Hinton had broken fingers

o n both hands requiring treatment by an orthopedic surgeon

. Lab results showed that Hinton had
anti

- anxiety medication in his system, but he tested negative for all other drugs and a negligible
amount of alcohol. H inton had to be sedated. When h e a woke in the i ntensive c are u nit (ICU) days
after the attack , he discovered that he could not walk and attended rehabilitation “to learn how to walk again. ” Greene County Sheriff’s Investigator S cott Murphy investigated the case. When he interviewed Hinton at the hospital, Hinton identified both Rikki and Serri as his assailant s , but he
could not remember Serri ’s name , only that he was Rikki’s boyfriend. Murphy also was familiar
with Serri and knew he was Rikki’s boyfriend. Murphy later showed Hinton a photograph of Serri , and Hinton verified that Serri was his attacker. Hinton told Murphy that Rikki struck him with the small wooden leg from a table, which was found in his house after the attack. At trial, Hinton testified that he had known Rikki for “a couple of years,” and Rikki had
introduced him to Serri

. Hinton did not know Serri well enough to know his last name, but he knew
Serri was Rikki’s boyfriend , and he had used drugs with them at his house a few times. Hinton also
identified Serri at trial

. Hinton denied that he had ever “ snitched ” on Serri

. Although he did not testify on direct that Rikki struck him during the attack, he responded to Serri’s inquiry on cross that
he believed sh e had

.- 4

-

A t trial , Serri admitted he was at Hinton’s house with Rikki on the night of the offense, but he denied going into the house and attacking Hinton. He claimed Hinton’s door was already open when they arrived

. Serri testified that Rikki entered Hinton’s house alone and was inside for t wo o r three minutes. Serri conceded that Rikki would have been un able to kick down the door herself because she was wearing a n orthopedic boot on her leg from recent surgery. A lthough Rikki was only five feet tall and weighed about 108 pounds, Serri believed she could over power Hinton and suggested that Rikki was Hinton’s attacker. The jury found Serri guilty of malicious wounding and burglary

. Serri appealed

. A NALYSIS Serri alleges that the evidence was insufficient to prove he committed the offenses for two

reasons: first, he argues that the only proof linking him to the offenses came from Hinton’s

“ unreliable ” testimony , and second, he asserts that the verdicts were not supported by corroborating physical or scientific evid ence. The principles governing our review of the sufficiency of the evidence are well

- settled. “When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, ‘[t]he judgment of the trial court is presumed correct and will not be disturbed unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.’”
McGowan v. Commonwealth , 72 Va. App. 513, 521 (2020) (alter ation in original) (quoting Smith v.
Commonwealth , 296 Va. 450, 460 (2018) ). “In such cases, ‘[t]he Court does not ask itself whether
it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Secret v. Commonwealth , 296 Va. 204, 228 (2018) ). “Rather, the relevant question is whether ‘ any rational trier of fact could ha ve found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” V asquez v. Commonwealth , 291 Va. 232, 248 (2016) (quoting
Williams v. Commonwealth , 278 Va. 190, 193 (2009) ). “If there is evidentiary support for the

conv iction, ‘the reviewing court is not permitted to substitute its own judgment, even if its opinion- 5

-

might differ from the conclusions reached by the finder of fact at the trial.’” McGowan , 72
Va. App. at 521 (quoting Chavez v. Commonwealth , 69 Va. App. 149, 161 (2018) ).
W e will not disturb the jury’s findings on the credibility of the witnesses unless those findings are plainly wrong. Towler v. Commonwealth , 59 Va. App. 284, 291 (2011)

. Witness credibility determinations “ [are] within the exclusive province of the jury, which has the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses as they testify.” Dalton v. Commonwealth , 64 Va. App. 512, 525 (2015) (quoting Lea v. Commonwealth , 16 Va. App. 300, 304 (1993) ). It is solely withi n the province of the jury to determine not only the credibility of the witnesses, but “the weight to be given their testimony, and the inferences to be drawn from proven facts.”
Commonwealth v. McNeal , 282 Va. 16, 22 (2011) (quoting Commonwealth v. Taylo r , 256 Va. 514, 518 (1998) ). Thus, “[w] e must accept the trier of fact’s ‘ determination of the credibility of witness testimony unless, “ as a matter of law, the testimony is inherently incredible. ” ’ ” Glass v.
Commonwealth , 74 Va. App. 214,

___ (2022) (quoting Lambert v. Commonwealth , 70 Va. App. 740, 759 (2019) ).
Serri asserts that Hinton was not credible and argues that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support the convictions because no corroborating forensic evidence linked
Serri to the crime scene

. Serri contends that Hinton’s identification of Serri as his attacker is
unreliable because Hinton failed to give Marchette Serri ’s name immediately after the attack and
identified Serri only after Murphy showed him a picture

. Serri also asserts that there was no
motive for the assault because there was no evidence that Hinton snitched on Serri . Finally, Serri stresses that, while Hinton told Murphy that Rikki hit him with a table leg d uring the attack, he failed to testify to that at trial. Serri concludes that because of the inconsistencies and the “troubling identification” of Serri as Hinton’s attacker, no reasonable juror should have believed Hinton’s testimony. We d is agree.- 6

-

We fi rst note that before encountering Marchette , Hinton underwent a beating so brutal
that it resulted in his admission to the ICU with severe injuries, including lacerations to his face, forehead, eyelid, and scalp, along with black eyes and broken fingers. He had bite marks, and skin was missing from his face from one of the bites . Hinton had to be sedated in the emergency room and woke up days later in the ICU. He was later treated by an orthopedic surgeon , and he
had to learn how to walk again. Moreover , the bloodshed at the scene was so extreme that
Marchette believed a murder had occu rred and looked for a dead body. Hinton’s inability to
recall Serri ’s name , after having met Serri only a few times , hardly renders his identification of
Serri unreliable or inherently unworthy of belief. Hinton looked into Serri ’s eyes while Serri bit
his cheek and push ed at his face

. Although Hinton did not remember Serri ’s name, he recognized
Serri ’s face.
That Hin ton identified Serri by his photograph also does not undermine the veracity of his testimony. Contrary to Serri ’s assertion, Hinton was not confused about his attack er
. Hinton consistently stated that he was attacked by a female and a male, whom he later identified as Rikki and her boyfriend. Hinton had met Serri on several occasions, and he saw Serri ’s face during the assault. Also, other than anti

- anxiety medication, Hinton did not have any drugs or alcohol in his system that might adversely affect his memory. And Hinton identified Serri in

court. In short, w e fail to see how Hinton’s identification could be inherently incredible

. T he fact that Hinton did not actually “ snitch ” on Serri is of no moment. The record
shows a motive for the attack

— Serri wanted Hinton’s drugs. And Hinton’s failure to testify on direct examination that Rikki struck him during the attack does not undermine his testimony’s credibility

. In fact, on cross - exami nation, he stated he thought she had struck him . “A legal determination that a witness is inherently incredible is very different from the mere identification of inconsistencies in a witness’ testimony or statements. Testimony may be contradictory or- 7

-

con tain inconsistencies without rising to the level of being inherently incredible as a matter of law.” Kelley v. Commonwealth , 69 Va. App. 617, 626 (2019). “Consequently, as Virginia law dictates, ‘[p]otential inconsistencies in testimony are resolved by t he fact finder,’ not the appellate court.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Towler , 59 Va. App. at 292). Even if Hinton’s testimony reached the threshold to be considered inconsistent, the jury resolved the inconsistencies by finding Hinton’s testim ony credible. Finally, Hinton’s testimony is not compromised by the lack of forensic evidence found at
the crime scene. In fact, Serri ’s own statement sufficiently corroborated Hinton’s account. Serri admitted he was present at the scene when he testified that he and Rikki drove to Hinton’s house on the night of the offense. Only Rikki , Serri, and Hinton were at Hinton’s house , leaving no other suspects

. Serri acknowledged that Hinton’s front door was kicked in , and he conceded that
Rikki could not have kicked down the door because she had a boot on and could not walk well. Thus, a fact finder could infer that Serri breached the door to enter the residence

. Based on the
evidence of Rikki ’s small stature and limited mobility , i t exceeds the bounds of common sense to suggest that she acted alone with sufficient violence , over only two or three minutes, to cause Hinton’s significant inju ries. Lastly , Serri was seen in Walmart after the attack with blood on his
face , neck, and hands and a cut on his eyebrow, suggesting that he was in a recent fight

. Simply put, t he record does not support Serri ’s assertion that Hinton’s testimony was so inherently incredible that it requires reversal of Serri’s convictions. “Evidence is not ‘incredible’ unless it is ‘so manifestly false that reasonable men ought not to believe it’ or ‘shown to be false by objects or things as to the existence and meaning of which reasonable men should not differ.’” Gerald v. Commonwealth , 295 Va. 469, 487 (2018) (quoting Juniper v.
Commonwealth , 271 Va. 362, 415 (2006)). Rather than showing that Hinton’s testimony was so- 8

-

“manifestly false” that no reasonably intelligent person would believe it, the record amply supports the jury’s rejection of Serri ’s claim of innocence. Because Hinton’s testimony was not inherently incredible as a matter of law and because the record supports the convictions, we do not disturb the verdi cts on appeal

. C ONCLUSION We hold that the eyewitness testimony was not inherently incredible and thus, the
evidence presented was sufficient to support Serri ’s convictions for malicious wounding and burglary. We, therefore, affirm the trial court. Affirmed.