COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Beales, Huff and O’Brien

Argued by videoconference

LENNIS L. McNAIR, JR.

MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY

v. Record No. 1299-19-1 JUDGE GLEN A. HUFF

OCTOBER 20, 2020

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS

Christopher R. Papile, Judge

Andrew M. Sacks (Sacks & Sacks, P.C., on brief), for appellant.

A. Anne Lloyd, Assistant Attorney General (Mark R. Herring, 

Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Following a bench trial, Lennis McNair (“appellant”) was convicted for unlawful 

wounding in violation of Code § 18.2-51 and sentenced to five years’ incarceration with four 

years and nine months suspended. Appellant contends that, because the trial court found parts of 

the complaining witness’ version of events incredible, the trial court erred by not finding her 

entire testimony incredible. Appellant further contends that because the complaining witness’ 

entire testimony was inherently incredible, the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to 

sustain his conviction.

A trial court is not required to find the entirety of a witness’ testimony inherently 

incredible as a matter of law solely because it found a portion of that witness’ testimony 

incredible. The trial court’s factual finding that appellant continued to attack the complaining 

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

UNPUBLISHED
- 2 -

witness in a fit of rage after seizing control of her knife is supported by the evidence. Therefore, 

this Court affirms.

I. BACKGROUND

On appeal, this Court “consider[s] the evidence and all reasonable inferences flowing 

from that evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party at 

trial.” Williams v. Commonwealth, 49 Va. App. 439, 442 (2007) (en banc) (quoting Jackson v. 

Commonwealth, 267 Va. 666, 672 (2004)). So viewed, the evidence is as follows:

On November 6, 2018, a Newport News police officer responded to a call where he 

found the victim, Kimberly Galloway, bleeding severely from her head. Further examination 

revealed severe lacerations to Galloway’s head, left hand, and left wrist. After speaking with 

individuals at the scene, the police developed appellant as a suspect.

Galloway testified that she had a prior sexual relationship with appellant which included 

mutual drug use. According to Galloway, on the night of November 5, 2018, she noticed 

appellant at his old apartment. They began talking, and he agreed to pay her twenty dollars to 

help him move to his fiancée’s home. Galloway admitted she had been using crack cocaine and 

drinking alcohol at the time. Galloway claimed that during the move, appellant started punching 

her and took the twenty dollars back. She testified that when she tried to leave, he chased her 

around the car. Nonetheless, she said that she decided to finish helping him move in order to get 

the twenty dollars.

She claimed that when they got back to his old apartment, he pulled out a knife, put it 

against her neck, got on top of her, and started stabbing her. She also testified that during this 

altercation, appellant called his fiancée and said, “I’m going to kill this bitch, and you better get 

me out of jail.” She was eventually able to get away and run to the home of her friend, Frederick 
- 3 -

Benjamin, who called 911. Galloway admits that her recollection of the events is not necessarily 

complete or in the correct order. She also has a prior perjury conviction.

According to appellant, on the way back to his old apartment, Galloway asked to stop at a 

house to speak with an individual to whom she owed money. When they arrived back at 

appellant’s old apartment, two men in ski masks walked up to the car and tried to rob appellant. 

At the same time, Galloway pulled out a knife and she and appellant started struggling for 

control of the knife. Appellant contended that Galloway’s forehead was cut during the struggle 

and while she still possessed the knife. He claimed that the injuries to her hand and wrist “most 

likely” occurred after he gained control of the knife because she was trying to grab it back. After 

gaining control over the knife, appellant blew his horn, causing the two men to run away. He 

then told Galloway to get out of his car and threw the knife out towards her. While driving 

away, appellant called Galloway’s mother and told her he had stabbed Galloway because she 

tried to rob him. Appellant stated that Galloway received the “worse end of the deal,” and got 

what she deserved for trying to rob and cut him.

The trial court found that Galloway’s version of events was incredible and credited 

appellant’s testimony that an attempted robbery occurred. However, the trial court stated that it 

did “not believe that these injuries to . . . Ms. Galloway could have occurred while they were 

struggling over a knife.” Rather, it found that appellant was “irate in a sense” and “in a fit of 

rage, continued to assault and stab and cut Ms. Galloway” in retaliation after gaining control of 

the knife. The trial court reasoned that because appellant continued to stab Galloway after she 

was no longer a threat, self-defense did not apply.

The trial court acquitted appellant of the kidnapping charge, struck the malicious 

wounding charge, and convicted appellant of the lesser-included offense of unlawful wounding. 
- 4 -

It sentenced him to five years of incarceration with four years and nine months suspended. This 

appeal followed.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

“When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court considers the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party below, and 

reverses the judgment of the trial court only when its decision is plainly wrong or without 

evidence to support it.” Marshall v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 648, 652-53 (2019). “[I]f 

there is evidence to support the conviction, the reviewing court is not permitted to substitute its 

judgment, even if its view of the evidence might differ from the conclusions reached by the 

finder of fact at the trial.” Linnon v. Commonwealth, 287 Va. 92, 98 (2014) (quoting Lawlor v. 

Commonwealth, 285 Va. 187, 224 (2013)).

III. ANALYSIS

Appellant argues that because the trial court found Galloway’s version of events 

incredible, it should have found the entirety of her testimony to be incredible. Therefore, 

appellant argues, the trial court was obligated to accept his testimony in its entirety as the only 

remaining credible evidence.1 Accordingly, appellant contends that any evidence supporting his 

conviction is inherently incredible as a matter of law.

Appellant is correct that the trial court found Galloway’s version of the events incredible. 

However, that does not mean that the trial court was obligated to find each and every part of her 

1 The Commonwealth contends that appellant’s argument is barred by Rule 5A:18 

because appellant did not make the specific legal argument to the trial court that after finding a 

portion of Galloway’s testimony incredible it was obligated to find the entirety of her testimony 

incredible as a matter of law. While it is true that appellant did not articulate his theory in such a 

pointed fashion, appellant did argue that the entirety of Galloway’s testimony was incredible as 

well as arguing that the evidence was insufficient to convict him. This Court holds that those 

arguments were sufficient to preserve this issue for appeal.
- 5 -

testimony incredible. Furthermore, it did not obligate the trial court as a matter of law to accept 

the entirety of appellant’s testimony. “A fact finder’s evaluations of credibility are not limited to 

choosing between competing accounts offered by different witnesses.” Commonwealth v. 

McNeal, 282 Va. 16, 22 (2011). It involves the fact finder “resolving conflicts in a single 

witness’s testimony, accepting part of the testimony that it deems credible and rejecting the 

portion it deems incredible.” Id. Furthermore, “[t]he fact finder, who has the opportunity to see 

and hear witnesses, has the sole responsibility to determine their credibility, the weight to be 

given their testimony, and the inferences to be drawn from proven facts.” Commonwealth v. 

Taylor, 256 Va. 516, 518 (1998). “When ‘credibility issues have been resolved by the [fact 

finder] in favor of the Commonwealth, those findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless 

plainly wrong.’” Towler v. Commonwealth, 59 Va. App. 284, 291 (2011) (quoting Corvin v. 

Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 296, 299 (1991)).

To support a conviction of unlawful wounding, the evidence must establish that the 

appellant stabbed or cut Galloway with the intent to “maim, disfigure, disable, or kill” her. 

Code § 18.2-51. Appellant does not dispute that he wounded Galloway. Accordingly, appellant 

contests only whether he possessed the necessary intent.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, there was 

evidence to support the trial court’s finding that appellant became irate and continued stabbing 

Galloway after he gained control of the knife. Galloway suffered severe cuts and stab wounds 

on her head, hand, and wrist that were unlikely to have occurred solely in a struggle for 

possession of the knife. Indeed, as the trial court noted, Galloway’s wounds were more likely 

the result of intentional action. Furthermore, in his statements after the incident, appellant 

continuously stated that Galloway got what she deserved and that he cut her because she tried to 

rob him. Despite the attempted robbery and the severity of Galloway’s injuries, appellant 
- 6 -

neglected to call either the police or emergency medical services. These facts support the trial 

court’s finding that appellant stabbed and cut Galloway out of anger after gaining possession of 

the knife. Therefore, its finding is not plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.

IV. CONCLUSION

The evidence supports the trial court’s finding that appellant stabbed and cut Galloway 

out of anger and after gaining full control of the knife. Accordingly, the evidence is sufficient to 

sustain his conviction for unlawful wounding and this Court affirms.

Affirmed.