Title: Commonwealth v. Jenkins
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 971537
State: Virginia
Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court
Date: April 17, 1998

Present: All the Justices 
 
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 
 
v. 
Record No. 971537  OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 April 17, 1998 
ANTWAN R. JENKINS 
 
 
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 
 
In this appeal of convictions of first degree murder and 
use of a firearm in the commission of murder, we consider 
whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that the victim 
died from gunshot wounds inflicted by the defendant. 
On May 21, 1995, in the City of Portsmouth, Antwan R. 
Jenkins fired several gunshots at Kelly Jackson, inflicting 
three wounds.  Jackson was later taken to a hospital where he 
received medical treatment for his injuries, including emergency 
surgery to repair damage to his colon.  Four days later, Jackson 
died while still in the hospital. 
Jenkins was indicted for unlawfully and feloniously killing 
Jackson, in violation of Code § 18.2-32, and for use of a 
firearm in the commission of a felony, in violation of Code 
§ 18.2-53.1.  During a jury trial, Dr. Faruk Presswalla, Deputy 
Chief Medical Examiner for the Commonwealth, testified that he 
performed an autopsy on Jackson and determined that Jackson had 
sustained three gunshot wounds.  One bullet entered Jackson’s 
back and moved through the skin and muscles of the back without 
penetrating any body cavity or vital organ.  A second bullet, 
which entered Jackson’s chest on the right side and fractured a 
rib, did not injure any vital organ or structure.  The third 
bullet entered Jackson’s abdomen, ultimately perforating his 
colon. 
Dr. Presswalla testified that Jackson had aspirated vomit, 
as indicated by vomit found in Jackson’s “airway” and in his 
lungs.  Dr. Preswalla explained that the “vomit [went] up and 
down into the airway, into his lungs.”  When asked whether he 
had formed an opinion regarding the cause of Jackson’s death, 
Dr. Presswalla stated that Jackson “died as a result of this 
aspiration following the gunshot wound to the abdomen.” 
Dr. Jeff Carney, a surgical resident who treated Jackson at 
the hospital, testified that on May 25, 1995, he entered 
Jackson’s room and noted that Jackson was markedly pale and was 
sweating profusely.  Dr. Carney then observed Jackson, who was 
lying on his back, begin vomiting.  After rolling Jackson onto 
his side, Dr. Carney waited until the vomiting episode had 
ended.  He then placed Jackson on his back and observed that 
Jackson “was in respiratory arrest or that he was not 
breathing.”  Shortly thereafter, Jackson died. 
Dr. Carney testified that Jackson appeared to have been 
healthy before he sustained the gunshot wounds.  Dr. Carney also 
stated that, at the time of his death, Jackson might have had 
 
2
“some type of seizure activity.”  Dr. Carney explained, “I am 
not a neurologist, I simply base [the statement regarding a 
possible seizure] on the opinion that [Jackson] had some spastic 
movements in his extremities.”  Dr. Carney stated that he could 
not offer an opinion whether Jackson actually had suffered a 
seizure. 
Jenkins introduced into evidence a typewritten discharge 
summary, which was dictated and signed by Dr. Carney.  On this 
document, a handwritten notation entered in the top margin of 
the first page stated:  
Many Factors contributed to his death but all were result 
of Gun Shot wound 
Bowel injury and contamination  
Extensive laporotomy 
Intubated. 
 
The record contains no testimony from any witness concerning the 
origin of this handwritten notation.  When Jenkins’ counsel 
offered the document in evidence, he did not request that the 
handwritten entry be excluded from the exhibit. 
The jury found Jenkins guilty of first degree murder and 
fixed his punishment at 23 years’ imprisonment.  The jury also 
found Jenkins guilty of use of a firearm in the commission of 
murder and fixed his punishment for that offense at three years’ 
imprisonment.  The trial court entered judgment in accordance 
with the jury’s verdict.  The Court of Appeals awarded Jenkins 
an appeal from this judgment. 
 
3
In the Court of Appeals, Jenkins argued that the evidence 
failed to show beyond a reasonable doubt that any of the three 
gunshot wounds he inflicted on Jackson was the cause of 
Jackson’s death.  The Court of Appeals agreed, holding that “the 
fact finder had no way of determining whether Dr. Presswalla 
meant that the aspiration was simply an unrelated event which 
coincidentally occurred after the gunshot wound, or a result of 
the gunshot wound with a causal relationship thereto.”  In an 
unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeals acknowledged the 
presence of the handwritten note on the discharge summary but 
held that, because “[t]here is no indication in the record of 
the source or author of this handwritten note . . . . we can 
only speculate as to its origin, authenticity, and authorship, 
and we are constrained by the record before us to disregard it.”  
The Court of Appeals reversed Jenkins’ convictions and dismissed 
the indictments. 
The Commonwealth filed a petition for appeal in this Court 
pursuant to Code §§ 17-116.08 and 19.2-317(c).*  We awarded the 
Commonwealth an appeal. 
The Commonwealth argues that Dr. Presswalla’s testimony 
provided sufficient evidence to prove that Jackson died from the 
                     
*These statutes allow the Commonwealth to seek a writ of 
error if it is aggrieved by a judgment of the Court of Appeals 
in any criminal case in which the judgment is not made final 
under Code §§ 17-116.07 or 19.2-408.  
 
4
gunshot wounds inflicted by Jenkins.  The Commonwealth also 
contends that the handwritten notation on the discharge summary 
constitutes further competent evidence to prove that Jackson 
died as a result of the gunshot wounds.  In addition, relying on 
Gallimore v. Commonwealth, 246 Va. 441, 436 S.E.2d 421 (1993), 
the Commonwealth argues that even if Jackson had a seizure prior 
to his death, such an intervening event would not exonerate 
Jenkins because any such seizure would have been “put into 
operation” by Jenkins’ acts. 
In response, Jenkins argues that the Commonwealth failed to 
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jackson died from the 
gunshot wounds.  Jenkins asserts that Dr. Presswalla did not 
state that the gunshot wounds caused Jackson to aspirate the 
vomit, and that Dr. Carney’s testimony suggests that Jackson’s 
death may have been caused by a seizure, rather than by the 
gunshot wounds.  Thus, Jenkins contends that the evidence was 
insufficient to support his convictions.  We disagree with 
Jenkins’ argument and the conclusion reached by the Court of 
Appeals. 
When a defendant challenges on appeal the sufficiency of 
the evidence to sustain his convictions, it is the appellate 
court’s duty to examine the evidence that tends to support the 
convictions and to permit the convictions to stand unless they 
are plainly wrong or without evidentiary support.  Code § 8.01-
 
5
680; Tyler v. Commonwealth, 254 Va. 162, 165-66, 487 S.E.2d 221, 
223 (1997); Goins v. Commonwealth, 251 Va. 442, 466, 470 S.E.2d 
114, 130, cert. denied, 519 U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 222 (1996).  If 
there is evidence to support the convictions, the reviewing 
court is not permitted to substitute its own judgment, even if 
its opinion might differ from the conclusions reached by the 
finder of fact at the trial.  Tyler, 254 Va. at 165-66, 487 
S.E.2d at 223; Cable v. Commonwealth, 243 Va. 236, 239, 415 
S.E.2d 218, 220 (1992); Avent v. Commonwealth, 209 Va. 474, 477, 
164 S.E.2d 655, 657 (1968). 
Upon review, the appellate court must examine the evidence 
and all inferences reasonably deducible therefrom in the light 
most favorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party in the 
trial court.  Tyler, 254 Va. at 165-66, 487 S.E.2d at 223; 
Goins, 251 Va. at 466, 470 S.E.2d at 130; Sheppard v. 
Commonwealth, 250 Va. 379, 387, 464 S.E.2d 131, 136 (1995), 
cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1110 (1996).  All evidence properly 
admitted at the trial is subject to this review.  See Tyler, 254 
Va. at 165-66, 487 S.E.2d at 223; Carter v. Nelms, 204 Va. 338, 
341, 131 S.E.2d 401, 403 (1963). 
When a defendant has inflicted wounds upon a victim that 
result in an affliction or a disease, the defendant is 
criminally responsible for the victim’s death from that 
affliction or disease if the wounds caused the death indirectly 
 
6
through a chain of natural effects and causes.  Spain v. 
Commonwealth, 7 Va. App. 385, 394-95, 373 S.E.2d 728, 733 
(1988); see Gallimore, 246 Va. at 447, 436 S.E.2d at 425; Waller 
v. Commonwealth, 178 Va. 294, 307, 16 S.E.2d 808, 813 (1941).  
An intervening event, even if a cause of the death, does not 
exempt the defendant from liability if that event was put into 
operation by the defendant’s initial criminal acts.  Gallimore, 
246 Va. at 447, 436 S.E.2d at 425; see Coleman v. Blankenship 
Oil Corp., 221 Va. 124, 131, 267 S.E.2d 143, 147 (1980); Baxley 
v. Fischer, 204 Va. 792, 798, 134 S.E.2d 291, 295 (1964). 
Here, the evidence showed that Jackson, the victim, was in 
good health prior to being shot by Jenkins.  Dr. Preswalla 
testified that Jackson “died as a result of [the] aspiration 
following the gunshot wound to the abdomen.”  Moreover, the 
handwritten notation on the discharge summary, introduced into 
evidence by Jenkins, stated that “[m]any factors contributed to 
[Jackson’s] death but all were [the] result of Gun Shot wound.”  
This evidence plainly supports the jury’s finding that Jackson 
died as a result of the gunshot wounds inflicted by Jenkins.  
Thus, the evidence was sufficient to prove the required causal 
connection between Jenkins’ acts and the victim’s death.  See 
Gallimore, 246 Va. at 447, 436 S.E.2d at 425. 
We find no merit in Jenkins’ argument that the handwritten 
notation on the discharge summary was not competent evidence in 
 
7
this case.  When Jenkins’ counsel offered the document into 
evidence, he did not request that the handwritten notation be 
excluded from the proffered exhibit.  Thus, as the proponent of 
the discharge summary exhibit which was received in evidence, 
Jenkins has waived any later objection to its consideration by 
the trier of fact.  See Rule 5:25; Frye v. Commonwealth, 231 Va. 
370, 386, 345 S.E.2d 267, 279 (1986); Moore v. Commonwealth, 211 
Va. 569, 570, 179 S.E.2d 458, 460 (1971). 
Since the handwritten notation on the discharge summary was 
received without objection as evidence in the case, the Court of 
Appeals erred in disregarding that portion of the exhibit in 
reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support Jenkins’ 
convictions.  A reviewing court must consider all evidence 
properly admitted at trial in determining the sufficiency of the 
evidence, not merely the evidence that the reviewing court 
considers most trustworthy.  See Tyler, 254 Va. at 165-66, 487 
S.E.2d at 223; Avent, 209 Va. at 477, 164 S.E.2d at 657; Nelms, 
204 Va. at 341, 131 S.E.2d at 403. 
For these reasons, we will reverse the Court of Appeals’ 
judgment and reinstate Jenkins’ convictions in accordance with 
the trial court’s judgment order. 
Reversed and final judgment. 
 
8