Source: https://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=0137182&s=VA&d=128308
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 18:11:12+00:00

Document:
24, 2016. That day, Wandemberg arrived at the victim’s home after finishing work.
threatened to kill the victim during this first assault, which lasted at least five minutes.
3 During the time period relevant to this case, the victim lived at her mother’s home.
closed fist and started choking her again.
ball[.]” The victim also suffered “bad headaches,” a black eye, and other bruising on her face.
that he remembered the victim having some scratches around her neck.
that he only did so after the victim punched him in the face multiple times.
and started choking her. She fell to the ground, got up, and then started screaming.
both hands on her neck, and began choking her.
the attack. Following the attack, the victim’s neck hurt and she had a knot on her head.
grand jury issued indictments charging Wandemberg with multiple felonies and misdemeanors.
damage indictment related to the victim’s broken cell phone.
all of the evidence and incorporated his renewed motion into his closing argument.
4 The Commonwealth charged Wandemberg with felony property damage after Wandemberg damaged the door to the victim’s mother’s home. However, the circuit court only convicted Wandemberg of misdemeanor property damage on that charge.
5 The transcript reflects that the circuit court stated “as she demonstrated to the officer when he asked[,]” not “as Wandemberg demonstrated to the officer when he asked[.]” However, the transcript and record do not reflect that the victim ever demonstrated how Wandemberg placed his hands around her neck. Rather, Officer Bechtold testified that Wandemberg demonstrated how he placed his hands around the victim’s neck when Officer Bechtold interviewed Wandemberg about the domestic violence incidents.
party at trial.” Severance v. Commonwealth, 67 Va. App. 629, 647 (2017) (citing Kelly v.
608 (2012) (citing Code § 8.01-680; Preston v. Commonwealth, 281 Va. 52, 57 (2011)).
respect to each strangulation incident, as required by Code § 18.2-51.6.
guilty of strangulation[.]” Neither Code § 18.2-51 nor Code § 18.2-51.6 defines bodily injury.
member, organ, or mental faculty; or is an act of impairment of a physical condition.” Id. at 479.
58 Va. App. at 719; see also Ricks, 290 Va. at 478.
that the evidence was sufficient to prove strangulation resulting in bodily injury. Id. at 479.
upon her neck, which resulted in the victim being unable to yell, talk, or breathe during that time.
Id. The attack also left the victim with a red mark on her neck. Id.
that [the victim] suffered a bodily injury in the form of a loss of consciousness.” Id. at 481.
Wandemberg caused the victim to suffer a bodily injury within the meaning of Code § 18.2-51.6.
Wandemberg for strangulation as a result of the mid-January 2017 incident.
finding evidence sufficient to support his conviction for interfering with a 911 phone call.
required the Commonwealth to prove that he disabled or destroyed the victim’s cell phone.
6 In its brief to this Court, the Commonwealth “acknowledges that, in determining bodily injury caused by the June 24, 2016 strangulation, the [circuit] court relied on facts that were not in evidence when it stated that [the victim] testified that ‘she felt dizzy as if she was going to faint, she was lightheaded.’” However, Wandemberg did not object to the circuit court’s findings when the circuit court rendered its judgment or in a post-trial motion. Accordingly, any error assigned to that finding it is barred by Rule 5A:18. See Ohree v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 299, 308 (1998).
however, asks that this Court invoke the ends of justice exception to Rule 5A:18.
did not occur.” Id. at 210 (emphasis added) (quoting Redman, 25 Va. App. at 221-22).
v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 681, 695 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
2. Maliciously prevents or interferes with telephone or telegraph communication by disabling or destroying any device that enables such communication, whether wired or wireless, he is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
destroyed the victim’s cell phone—an element of the offense.
caused, with damage less than $1,000 constituting a misdemeanor. See Code § 18.2-137(B).
Bechtold that the victim threw her phone at him, which missed and struck a dresser.
was dependent upon proof of Wandemberg’s seizure and destruction of the victim’s cell phone.
court’s judgment on that charge.
‘unfairness.’” Id. at 532 n.5 (quoting Johnson v. State, 209 A.2d 765, 773 (Md. 1965)).
phone call, the Commonwealth was required to prove an identical element shared by each crime.
Wandemberg’s conviction for interfering with a 911 phone call.
Outcome: For the reasons previously stated, we affirm Wandemberg’s strangulation convictions but reverse and dismiss his conviction for interfering with a 911 phone call.

References: v. 
 v.

 § 8
 v. 
 § 18
 § 18
 § 18
 § 18
 v. 

v. 
 § 18
 v.