Opinion ID: 1058258
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Assault and Battery by Mob

Text: Each of Hamilton's convictions for assault and battery by a mob was pursuant to Code § 18.2-42. That statute states: Any and every person composing a mob which shall commit a simple assault or battery shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Code § 18.2-42. The term mob, in relevant part, is defined as [a]ny collection of people, assembled for the purpose and with the intention of committing an assault or a battery upon any person. Code § 18.2-38. In order to sustain a conviction of assault or battery by mob under Code § 18.2-42, the evidence must establish that the accused was a member of a mob and that the mob committed simple assault or battery. Commonwealth v. Leal, 265 Va. 142, 146, 574 S.E.2d 285, 288 (2003). The statutory definition of a mob requires that the act of assembling be done for a specific purpose and with a specific intentto commit an assault or a battery. Harrell v. Commonwealth, 11 Va.App. 1, 6, 396 S.E.2d 680, 682 (1990). The act of assembling with that specific purpose and intent distinguishes mob behavior from merely individual behavior while part of a group. Id. at 7, 396 S.E.2d at 683. However, the group need not have originally assembled with such purpose and intent in mind. Rather, [i]t is possible that individuals who are lawfully assembled may become members of a `mob' without great deliberation. Id. Whether a group of individuals becomes a mob depends upon the circumstances and no particular words or express agreements are required to effect a change in a group's purpose or intentions. Id. at 7-8, 396 S.E.2d at 683. Once an assembled group becomes a mob under § 18.2-38, every person composing the mob becomes criminally culpable even though the member may not have actively encouraged, aided, or countenanced the act of assault or battery. Id. at 8, 396 S.E.2d at 683. Thus, criminal accountability flows from being a member of the mob, regardless of whether the member aids and abets in the assault and battery. Id. In challenging his three convictions under Code § 18.2-42, Hamilton first contends that the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was a participant in the mob that attacked Small. With regard to the Payne and Johnston attacks, Hamilton argues the evidence was insufficient to establish that either Payne or Johnston was attacked by a mob, and even if they were, that he was a member of such mob. We will address the convictions in that order. Hamilton does not dispute, and indeed the evidence overwhelmingly shows, that Small was assaulted by a mob. That mob was composed of Blood members. Small recounted getting hit by several individuals and remembered hearing someone say, We ain't wearing red for nothing. One witness estimated that approximately 12 people were kicking and beating Small and testified that [a]ll you could see was red. During the attack, several witnesses heard people yelling, We're not wearing red for the hell of it. Another witness heard someone wearing a red shirt yell Dip Set while kicking Small. Small was rendered unconscious and later became aware that someone had burned his back with a cigarette in the shape of a Trey burn. Such a burn, according to the Commonwealth's expert, is a sign of retaliation for disrespecting the Bloods. Hamilton admitted being in the proximity of the attack on Small and recognizing Small as the victim, but he denied any involvement in the attack. Stouffer, however, recalled seeing Hamilton standing over Small as Small was lying on the ground. Hamilton, Stouffer stated, had his hands near Small's back and was doing something other than rendering assistance to Small. In light of the burns Small received on his back, the jury could reasonably conclude that Hamilton placed those burns there and was thus a member of the mob that assaulted and battered Small. Hamilton, however, points to the testimony of McLaughlin and Howdyshell, both of whom did not remember seeing Hamilton in the group of people attacking Small. Hamilton also argues that, based on Stouffer's testimony, it was equally likely that he was assisting Small as opposed to placing burns on Small's back. These assertions merely highlight the witnesses' different recollections of the events at the party and the credibility determinations the jury therefore had to make. The fact finder, who has the opportunity to see and hear the 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. 514, 518, 506 S.E.2d 312, 314 (1998). On appellate review, we do not substitute our judgment for that of the fact finder. Cable v. Commonwealth, 243 Va. 236, 239, 415 S.E.2d 218, 220 (1992). We conclude the evidence was sufficient to sustain Hamilton's conviction for the assault and battery of Small by a mob; the jury's determination that Hamilton was part of the mob that attacked Small was not plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. See Code § 8.01-680. With regard to the Payne and Johnston attacks, Hamilton first asserts there was insufficient evidence to prove that either Payne or Johnston was assaulted by a mob. He argues that the particular person who attacked Payne and Johnston did so as [o]ne belligerent individual, Harrell, 11 Va.App. at 11, 396 S.E.2d at 685, and that there was no collection of people, assembled for the purpose and with the intention of committing an assault or battery upon either victim, Code § 18.2-38. We do not agree. Payne was hit in the head with a tiki torch when he approached a group of people, inquiring about [w]hat sounded like fireworks. When Payne went after the person who struck him, someone else pointed a gun into his chest and pulled the trigger. According to Switzer, there were a lot of people wearing red, everybody was doing hand-signs like a symbol, and people were saying Blood-at. In addition, Switzer saw one person firing the gun before a different individual then pointed it at Payne's chest. Miller, in addition to seeing someone strike Payne with the tiki torch, witnessed someone hand a gun to another individual while saying, Kill that mother-f___ker. The presence of Blood members and their use of hand-signs and the Blood war cry, which is specifically used to call other Bloods to provide whatever ... assistance is required, all demonstrate that the Blood members assembled for the purpose and with the intent to assault and batter Payne. Even if the Blood members were lawfully assembled without the intent to commit an assault prior to Payne's entry onto the scene, the use of Blood-at and the instruction to [k]ill that mother-f___ker show that the group transformed into a mob under Code § 18.2-38. Therefore, we conclude the jury's finding that a mob assaulted and battered Payne was not plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. See Code § 8.01-680. We reach the same conclusion with regard to the attack on Johnston. He approached a group of Bloods who had become so upset about some happening that Johnston characterized the response as extreme. As he approached the group, Johnston heard people saying Blood-at as if they were imitating a gun going off. Hartless confirmed that the Bloods say Blood-at or Blat in a way to mimic gunfire. Just as in the Payne attack, people shouted the Blood war cry to call their fellow Bloods to provide assistance. Scott, a second lieutenant in the Bloods, then hit Johnston in the head with a tiki torch. According to Johnston, Scott was surrounded by a group of guys wearing red bandanas. Duncan also testified that there was a group of individuals around Scott who were wearing red bandanas and red t-shirts and that Scott was threatening people as though he wanted to fight them. Duncan also stated that Scott hit both Payne and Johnston, and Hamilton's own testimony establishes that the two attacks were not isolated incidents. The evidence established that a collection of people assembled with the purpose and intent to commit assault or battery and was thus sufficient to prove that Johnston, like Payne, was assaulted and battered by a mob. Code § 18.2-38. Hamilton contends, however, that even if a mob did assault and batter Payne and Johnston, the Commonwealth failed to prove that he was part of any such mob. Hamilton argues that, because no one testified as to his presence when either Payne or Johnston were attacked, the jury had no basis upon which to conclude that he was a member of any mob that attacked either victim. Hamilton further contends that he could be convicted of these two assaults only if the evidence proved both attacks occurred at the same time and the evidence does not support such a conclusion. We disagree with Hamilton's arguments and conclude that there was sufficient evidence showing that Hamilton was a member of the mob that assaulted both Payne and Johnston. Hamilton's testimony established that the attacks on Payne and Johnston occurred close in time and were committed by the same mob. He described a first fight and the next fight as the big fight ... on top of the hill. [4] Hamilton testified that, in the latter fight, he saw two individuals get hit with the tiki torch and at the same time witnessed Hart pull out a nickel-plated pistol and fire it into the air. Hart, who went to the party with Hamilton, said Hamilton was standing next to him when he was firing the gun into the air and that Hamilton tried to get the gun from Scott. Hamilton himself testified that Scott took the gun from Hart, had some words with one of the guys who got hit with the tiki torch, and then put a gun to [one of] the victim[s'] chest[s]. Both Hart and Hamilton then saw the gun fly into the air when Scott was tackled. Likewise, other witnesses confirmed that the same mob attacked Payne and Johnston and did so at about the same time. Duncan testified that Scott was seeking to fight people and that he connected with two people, i.e., battered them, by using the tiki torch. Johnston said a big fight blew up around three o'clock in the morning and he was responding to this big fight when he was struck with the tiki torch. Randolph stated that the first [fight] was when Marty assaulted Small. In response to a question about a later fight, she described it as when the gun and all that got happening, all that fighting started. Witnesses recalled seeing a group of Bloods surrounding Scott when he used the tiki torch to strike Payne and Johnston. In describing the Payne attack, Switzer stated there were a lot of people wearing red saying Blood-at, and doing hand-signs like a symbol. Johnston also heard people saying Blood-at when Scott struck him with the tiki torch. Both Duncan and Johnston described the individuals surrounding Scott as wearing red bandanas. Finally, evidence showed Hamilton's association with the Bloods at the party. He admitted that he wore a red and black hat that was possibly a Boston Red Sox hat. Hamilton also stated to McLaughlin, You're a Blood and you don't even know it. Hamilton and Hart came to the party together, Hamilton was standing next to Hart when Hart was firing the gun that was eventually pointed at Payne, and Duncan placed Hart in the group surrounding Scott. Based on this evidence, we conclude that Hamilton was a person composing the mob that assembled for the purpose and with the intent to assault or batter Payne and Johnston. Code § 18.2-42. Compose means to form the substance of: constitute. Webster's Third New International Dictionary 466 (1993). As a part of the mob that attacked both victims, Hamilton is criminally culpable even though he may not have actively encouraged, aided, or countenanced the assaults. Harrell, 11 Va.App. at 8, 396 S.E.2d at 683. In summary, we find sufficient evidence to sustain Hamilton's convictions for the mob assaults of Small, Payne, and Johnston.