COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Willis and Bray 

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia 

ROBERT LEON PARKER 

v. Record No. 1548-94-1 MEMORANDUM OPINION* 

 BY JUDGE JOSEPH E. BAKER 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA NOVEMBER 14, 1995 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH 

Dennis F. McMurran, Judge 

 Dianne G. Ringer, Assistant Public Defender, 

 for appellant. 

 Linwood T. Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General 

 (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on brief), 

 for appellee. 

 The sole issue presented by Robert Leon Parker (Parker) in 

this appeal is whether the Circuit Court of the City of 

Portsmouth (trial court) erred when it permitted the Commonwealth 

to introduce evidence that Johnille Dubois (Dubois), a 

co-defendant, had pled guilty. The facts relevant to the issue 

are not in dispute. 

 On November 20, 1991, Sherry Watson (Watson), Angela Garcia 

(Garcia), and Philip Council (Council), employees at In-A-Hurry, 

a fast food convenience store located in the City of Portsmouth, 

were at work when four men entered the store. As the men 

entered, a shot was fired. Two of the men went behind the 

counter. A third man, armed with a gun, ordered Council to empty 

 

____________________ 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 
- 2 - 

designated for publication. 

the cash register. Council, who suffered from brain damage and 

was described by his co-workers as "slow" and "kind of clumsy," 

attempted to comply with the order to empty the register but, 

because of his slowness, was having difficulty doing so. As a 

result, at least three of the men then attacked Council. While 

the men beat Council, one or more shots were fired. Council was 

shot and killed as the robbery progressed. One of the men then 

ordered Garcia to open the register. Garcia complied. The 

robbers took the money from the register and left. 

 Both Watson and Garcia identified Dubois as the gunman, and 

Watson identified Garrett Porter (Porter) as one of the other 

participants in the robbery. The store was equipped with a 

security camera, but the tape was not clear enough to identify 

any of the perpetrators of the robbery. 

 Porter testified on behalf of the Commonwealth and stated 

that he knew Parker and that they used to "hang together." He 

said that on November 20, he was with Parker, Johnson Ruffin, and 

Dubois, and that Parker had a gun. He said that Dubois told them 

that he had been "scoping on this In-A-Hurry" and began to tell 

them, in detail, the layout of the store. Thereafter, they all 

decided to rob the store, and later the four of them divided the 

money. Porter further testified that during the robbery Dubois 

shot Council. 

 When Porter was arrested, he gave police a statement in 
- 3 - 

which he admitted his part in the crime. In addition, at trial 

he testified that he had entered into a written plea agreement 

because he was not the gunman.1

 During cross-examination, Porter 

responded to a defense question saying that he had originally 

been charged with capital murder and in the agreement his charge 

had been reduced to first degree murder. During redirect 

examination, Porter was questioned by the prosecutor concerning 

Dubois's plea agreement. The transcript discloses the following: 

 Q Now, we've been over your plea 

agreement; is that right? Are you familiar 

with Mr. Dubois' plea agreement? 

 A Not really. 

 Q Did you ever discuss it with your 

attorney? 

 A I did know he pleaded guilty, but I 

don't know to what. 

MR. LINDAUER: Your Honor, I don't know 

that that would be relevant whether he knows 

about another person who's not Mr. Parker. 

MR. BULLOCK: If he knows. 

THE COURT: If you can connect it up, 

I overrule the objection. 

MR. BULLOCK: 

 Q Do you know what Mr. Dubois was 

charged with? 

 A Capital murder and robbery. 

 Q Do you know what he pled guilty to? 

 A No, I don't. 

 

 1The plea agreement was entered into evidence. 
- 4 - 

 The sole objection made to the above testimony was that it 

was not relevant. Parker asserts that it was reversible error 

for the trial court to admit that testimony into evidence. This 

is the only alleged error presented for our consideration. 

 It is clear that the purpose of the questions Parker's 

counsel asked Porter concerning his plea agreement was to 

challenge his credibility by showing he was testifying on behalf 

of the Commonwealth as a part of a deal whereby Porter would 

avoid a possible death sentence. It further is clear that unless 

a defendant has given cause to permit it, the introduction into 

evidence of a guilty plea and sentencing of a co-defendant or an 

accomplice for the purpose of showing the accused's guilt 

constitutes error. See Lewis v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 80, 175 

S.E.2d 236 (1970); Ward v. Commonwealth, 205 Va. 564, 138 S.E.2d 

293 (1964). Here, the question differs from those cases in that 

the purpose of Parker's inquiry into the terms of Porter's plea 

agreement was to attempt to show that Porter had a reason to lie, 

thereby challenging his credibility. The questions in issue were 

intended to rehabilitate Porter's credibility by showing that 

Dubois, the gunman, already had been convicted of the charge of 

capital murder and, therefore, the plea agreement obtained by 

Porter was not an inducement for Porter to testify against 

Parker. For that reason, the questions and answers, if known, 

were relevant. The determination of admission of relevant 

evidence lay within the sound discretion of the trial court 
- 5 - 

subject to the test of abuse of that discretion. See Coe v. 

Commonwealth, 231 Va. 83, 340 S.E.2d 820 (1986). 

 We hold that under the facts of this case, the trial court 

did not abuse its discretion, and we affirm its judgment. 

 Affirmed.