Opinion ID: 1058265
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Applying well established principles of appellate review, we will state the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party in the circuit court. McMillan v. Commonwealth, 277 Va. 11, 15, 671 S.E.2d 396, 399 (2009); Bishop v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 9, 11, 654 S.E.2d 906, 907 (2008); Pruitt v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 382, 384, 650 S.E.2d 684, 684 (2007). We will only summarize those facts that are germane to the sufficiency of the evidence to establish the defendant's crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. As we previously stated, Henry Carmon, the victim, encountered the defendant on June 12, 2006, during the day, at a facility operated by the Salvation Army. Later that evening, Carmon left his home around 10:00 p.m. to walk to a convenience store in order to bum a cigarette. As Carmon was walking, he met the defendant. Carmon stated that the defendant was standing there and [that they] faced each other and [the defendant] took his left hand trying to cover his face up. [The defendant] had a white sweater on. Then [the defendant] took his right hand and went for the gun. The defendant removed a gun from his belt, the waistband area. Carmon testified that the defendant shot at [Carmon] five times, but [the defendant] hit [Carmon] one time. The defendant shot Carmon in his buttock and during the trial, Carmon identified the defendant as the individual who shot him. After the shooting, Carmon informed Detective Hickman that the defendant was wearing a white shirt, a white sweater, and that he was trying to conceal his face. Carmon had seen the defendant several times before the defendant shot Carmon. The defendant attended the same high school as Carmon's stepdaughter. Carmon knew that the defendant lived on Price Street and had seen the defendant driving a grey or white car and also a big black car. Carmon informed Detective Hickman that the defendant's nickname began with the letter `T'. Mary McMillan, who lives on Price Street, the same street where the defendant lives, heard a loud popping noise about five or six times around 10:00 p.m. on June 12, 2006. She left her house and walked on her porch to see what was going on. She saw the defendant, whose nickname is Turk, walking down the street. McMillan identified the defendant as Turk during the trial. Dayna Blumel observed a black male wearing a white shirt on the night of the crimes. She saw him on three occasions. The first time she saw the defendant, he was walking in the street. She observed him again approximately ten to fifteen minutes later. About thirty minutes later, she heard a gunshot and she saw the defendant briskly walking or a slight jog. Later, she saw the defendant running and she heard sirens from police cars. Dayna Blumel testified that the defendant stopped running and ducked when he saw some police officers. Robert Blumel also observed Barnes on the night of the shootings. Blumel described Barnes as a black male with medium height, slight build, and short hair. Robert Blumel saw Barnes and Blumel heard gunshots. Less than one minute elapsed between the time Robert Blumel heard gunshots and the time he saw the defendant running near the crime scene. Blumel spoke to policemen who were at the crime scene and testified that [a]s soon as [Blumel] leaned forward and pointed to [the defendant], [the defendant] crouched down and the police got him. The police officers executed a search warrant of Barnes' residence and found a handgun, magazine, and ammunition. They also seized a white-colored, short-sleeved, hooded sweat top. The semi-automatic handgun, along with the magazine and cartridges, were concealed in a basement area above the ductwork. Gary C. Arntsen, a firearm examiner employed by the Commonwealth of Virginia in the Fairfax Forensic Laboratory, qualified as an expert witness on the subject of firearms. He testified that the bullets discovered at the scene of the crime had been fired by the defendant's 9 millimeter pistol that was found in his home as the result of the execution of the search warrant. Additionally, bullet cartridges found at the scene of the crime had been expelled by the defendant's pistol, which was in operable condition. A bullet that had been removed from the victim's body had also been fired by the defendant's pistol. Dr. Hani Seoudi, a surgeon who operated on the victim the night of the shooting, qualified as an expert witness. Dr. Seoudi testified that the bullet from the defendant's pistol damaged the lining of the victim's left hip joint and that is closest to what [doctors] call traumatic arthritis, which can present in chronic pain and limitation [of] range of motion of the joint. Additionally, Dr. Seoudi testified that as a result of the surgery that he performed on the victim, the victim would have permanent intestinal and abdominal scarring. Carmon was in the hospital for approximately three weeks as a result of the injuries caused by the assailant. Carmon is unable to walk long distances and to sleep at night. His legs hurt all the time. He also has scarring as a result of the surgery to remove the bullet from his buttock.
The defendant argues that the Commonwealth failed to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, sufficient evidence to support his convictions for aggravated malicious wounding in violation of Code § 18.2-51.2 and use of a firearm in the commission of aggravated malicious wounding in Code § 18.2-53.1. Continuing, the defendant asserts that the Commonwealth failed to establish that the victim suffered severe injury with significant and permanent physical impairment as required by Code § 18.2-51.2. The defendant's arguments are utterly without merit. Without being unduly repetitive, we note that the victim and numerous witnesses identified Barnes as the armed assailant who shot Carmon with a 9 millimeter pistol discovered at Barnes' house. Additionally, Dr. Seoudi testified that the bullet that entered the victim's body damaged the lining of his left hip joint, thereby causing traumatic arthritis. Traumatic arthritis can result in chronic pain and a limitation of the range of motion of that joint. Furthermore, the facts summarized in part V.A. of this opinion clearly demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the Commonwealth introduced sufficient evidence to support the convictions.