COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Clements, Haley and Senior Judge Bumgardner 

Argued by teleconference 

LUCIO HENRY CABRERA-SANCHEZ 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 BY 

v. Record No. 1183-07-4 JUDGE RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III 

FEBRUARY 12, 2008 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY 

Gaylord L. Finch, Judge 

 (Charles J. Swedish, on brief), for appellant. Appellant submitting 

on brief. 

 Karen Misbach, Assistant Attorney General II (Robert F. 

McDonnell, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. 

 Lucio Henry Cabrera-Sanchez appeals his convictions after a bench trial for two counts 

of assault and battery on a family or household member, third or subsequent offense, Code 

§ 18.2-57.2. He contends the evidence was insufficient to support either conviction. Concluding 

the evidence was sufficient, we affirm. 

“On appeal, ‘we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, 

granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom.’” Archer v. Commonwealth, 

26 Va. App. 1, 11, 492 S.E.2d 826, 831 (1997) (quoting Martin v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 

438, 443, 358 S.E.2d 415, 418 (1987)). 

 On August 2, 2006, Laura Gutierrez called the police to report that Cabrera-Sanchez, her 

live-in boyfriend and the father of her children, had attacked her. Officer Patrick Kinney 

responded and found Gutierrez agitated and crying with red marks on her face. The victim 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 
- 2 -

provided the police with a handwritten statement describing the event. The next day, the 

defendant telephoned the victim from jail and repeatedly tried to persuade her to claim that the 

incident was just a misunderstanding and that she wanted to drop the charges. 

On August 31, 2006, Gutierrez again called the police. Officer Sara Gorny responded to 

the scene and found Gutierrez outside the residence. She had tears in her eyes, her voice was 

shaking, and she had fingerprint marks on both upper arms and a “brush burn” on her foot. The 

officer went in the residence and spoke with the defendant. He was seated in the living room in a 

relaxed manner and had an odor of alcohol on his breath. He admitted making the marks on the 

victim but claimed he was trying to keep her from hitting him. 

At trial, the victim minimized the defendant’s role in both incidents. She claimed that 

she struck the defendant on August 2 and she threw herself down the stairs on August 31. She 

maintained she had lied to the police about both incidents. However, the victim acknowledged 

that the defendant had hit her hard enough to knock her down and that she was in pain the day 

after the August 2 incident. She also acknowledged that the night of August 31 she had told the 

police that the defendant grabbed her and caused her to fall down the steps. 

The defendant’s only objection to the Commonwealth’s other evidence was sustained. 

The trial court sustained an objection to the officer recounting the victim’s statements when he 

first arrived on August 2. However, without contemporaneous objection, the Commonwealth 

introduced the victim’s handwritten statement made at the scene. It recounted the defendant was 

spanking the couple’s son and the victim pulled the defendant away. The defendant reacted by 

hitting her in the head “really hard” and knocking her to the floor. The Commonwealth 

introduced a recording of the telephone call the defendant made from jail. In it the defendant 

tried to talk the victim out of proceeding with the charges, but in response she confirmed that the 

defendant had hit her. 
- 3 -

 The trial court believed the Commonwealth’s evidence showing the defendant was the 

aggressor. It rejected the victim’s retraction of her earlier statements and the defendant’s version 

of the events. “The credibility of the witnesses and the weight accorded the evidence are matters 

solely for the fact finder who has the opportunity to see and hear that evidence as it is presented.” 

Sandoval v. Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 133, 138, 455 S.E.2d 730, 732 (1995). We find no 

error with the trial court’s determination of credibility. 

The argument in the defendant’s brief consists of three, one-sentence paragraphs citing a 

single case.1

 The defendant contends the evidence was (1) insufficient to convict because it 

proves the defendant acted in self-defense, and (2) was insufficient because it could only have 

been based on prior inconsistent statements. Suffice it to say, the evidence did not raise the issue 

of self-defense nor did the defendant argue that on appeal. The second argument makes an 

admissibility of evidence argument when raising a sufficiency issue. The defendant inserts the 

rule on the admissibility of prior inconsistent statements that were used to impeach into an issue 

addressing the weight to be given conflicting statements admitted without objection. 

The testimony of the officers, the victim’s written report, the defendant’s statements, and 

the physical evidence of the victim’s injuries constituted sufficient evidence to permit a finding 

that the defendant committed assault and battery on August 2. Likewise, the victim’s demeanor 

at the scene and obvious injuries combined with the officer’s observations were sufficient to 

permit a finding that the defendant committed the second assault and battery on August 31. The 

defendant’s behavior and lack of any injuries belied his claim that he merely defended himself. 

 1 Thornton v. Downes, 177 Va. 451, 14 S.E.2d 345 (1941), that stands for the proposition 

that a prior inconsistent statement that is used to impeach a witness is not evidence to prove the 

fact stated in it. 
- 4 -

The Commonwealth’s evidence was competent, not inherently incredible, and sufficient to prove 

beyond a reasonable doubt both counts of domestic assault and battery. Accordingly, we affirm. 

Affirmed.