Opinion ID: 1059722
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: In his first argument, [8] the defendant asserts that his death sentence was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or other arbitrary factors. Specifically, he contends that the circuit court erred in refusing to grant an instruction on first degree murder and an instruction on determining the grade of the offense of homicide. [9] The defendant makes the same argument on appeal but also asserts that the instructions should have been given to the jury because the question whether the defendant acted maliciously was disputed. [10] We do not agree with the defendant's argument. It is well-established in Virginia that jury instructions are proper only if supported by the evidence, and' that more than a scintilla of evidence is necessary to support a lesser-included offense instruction requested by the defendant. Commonwealth v. Donkor, 256 Va. 443, 445, 507 S.E.2d 75, 76 (1998). We have also recognized that evidence showing a murder `to have been deliberate, premeditated and wilful could be so clear and uncontroverted that a trial court could properly refuse to instruct on the lesser included offenses.' Buchanan v. Commonwealth, 238 Va. 389, 409, 384 S.E.2d 757, 769 (1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1063, 110 S.Ct. 880, 107 L.Ed.2d 963 (1990) (quoting Painter v. Commonwealth, 210 Va. 360, 366, 171 S.E.2d 166, 171 (1969)). The evidence in the present case does not support the defendant's proffered instructions. An instruction on first degree murder was not warranted because the video tape clearly established that Burnett was shot in the chest during the commission of armed robbery at the convenience store. See Bennett v. Commonwealth, 236 Va. 448, 470, 374 S.E.2d 303, 317 (1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1028, 109 S.Ct. 1765, 104 L.Ed.2d 200 (1989) (holding first degree murder instruction not warranted because defendant adduced no evidence that victim was not murdered during commission of robbery). Thus, the sole issue was whether the defendant was the person who killed Burnett, i.e., was he guilty or innocent of the capital offense. Frye v. Commonwealth, 231 Va. 370, 389, 345 S.E.2d 267, 281 (1986). Also, the record does not contain a scintilla of evidence that the defendant acted without premeditation or malice so as to justify an instruction on second degree murder or voluntary manslaughter, respectively. See Donkor, 256 Va. at 445, 507 S.E.2d at 76. Accordingly, we find no error in the circuit court's judgment refusing to grant these two instructions.
Next, the defendant challenges the imposition of the death penalty based on the finding that he would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing serious threat to society pursuant to Code § 19.2-264.4(C). The defendant's attack with regard to this issue is threefold. He first asserts that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish future dangerousness because he had no prior history of significant violent offenses. He next contends that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard in determining future dangerousness. Finally, he argues that the introduction into evidence of unadjudicated criminal acts violates the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Virginia because there is no requirement that such acts be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. [11] We do not agree with any of the defendant's arguments. As to the first prong of the defendant's attack, we find sufficient evidence of future dangerousness to support the imposition of the death penalty. During the month of January 1998, the defendant committed numerous criminal acts in three separate episodes, in addition to the robbery and murder of Burnett. On January 21, he entered Jones' home while no one was present and then shot Jones in the leg when she attempted to stop the defendant's abduction of Scougal. That same day, the defendant used a firearm to rob Powell. Then on January 30, the day before the defendant was apprehended, he abducted and robbed three women, again using a firearm, and left them in a small closet after nailing the door shut. This evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing serious threat to society. Code § 19.2-264.2; see also § 19.2-264.4(C). Thus, the trial court did not err in refusing to strike the Commonwealth's evidence with regard to the defendant's future dangerousness. The defendant's next argument is that the trial court adopted the wrong legal standard when it used the phrase sufficient probable cause in the following statement, which the court made while overruling the defendant's motion to strike the Commonwealth's evidence at sentencing: The matter of future dangerousness, again, the evidence there is evidence before the Court and before this jury and the jury will make the determination as to whether there is sufficient probable causeprobability that the Defendant is guilty of any future dangerousness. We do not agree with the defendant's contention for two reasons. First, we believe that the court's use of that phrase was a misstatement because the court immediately corrected itself by using the term probability. The term probability is part of the criteria set forth in Code § 19.2-264.4(C) for determining future dangerousness: The penalty of death shall not be imposed unless the Commonwealth shall prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a probability based upon evidence of the prior history of the defendant ... that he would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing serious threat to society. (Emphasis added.) See also Code § 19.2-264.2. Furthermore, the court properly instructed the jury in accordance with this statutory provision. Thus, we conclude that the trial court decided the motion to strike on the issue of future dangerousness under the appropriate standard. We also find no merit in the third aspect of the defendant's argument regarding future dangerousness. The defendant asserts that the Commonwealth used unadjudicated criminal acts that had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish future dangerousness. However, most of the criminal acts about which the jury heard evidence had been adjudicated. The record shows that, before the sentencing hearing in this case, the defendant had been found guilty, based on his guilty pleas, of the offenses that he committed on January 21 in the City of Richmond and those that he committed on January 30 in New Kent County. As to those criminal acts that were unadjudicated on the date of the sentencing hearing in the present case, we have previously construed Code § 19.2-264.4(C) to permit the admission into evidence of unadjudicated misconduct. Spencer v. Commonwealth, 238 Va. 295, 317, 384 S.E.2d 785, 799 (1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1093, 110 S.Ct. 1171, 107 L.Ed.2d 1073 (1990). Moreover, we specifically held in Walker v. Commonwealth, 258 Va. 54, 66, 515 S.E.2d 565, 572 (1999), that evidence of each unadjudicated criminal act admitted to show a defendant's future dangerousness is not subject to the reasonable doubt standard. Rather, the finding of future dangerousness must be supported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. The defendant has offered no reason why we should depart from these precedents. Accordingly, we will not disturb the circuit court's judgment on this issue.
The defendant contends that the circuit court erred in overruling a pretrial motion in limine to exclude photographs of the victim, including autopsy photographs, from being introduced into evidence at trial. [12] The defendant argues that, since he had stipulated that Burnett was killed by a single gunshot wound to the chest, the Commonwealth offered the photographs solely to arouse the sympathy of the jury for the victim and to prejudice it against him. Over the defendant's objections, the trial court admitted into evidence photographs exhibiting the following images: (1) the open cash register drawer and the victim slumped on the floor behind the check-out counter; (2) a closer view of Burnett's body sitting on the floor; (3) a small bruise on Burnett's back where Dr. Kinnison found the bullet; (4) the entry wound in Burnett's chest; (5) the victim's condition upon arrival for the autopsy and his blood-stained shirt; (6) Burnett with some of his friends; and (7) Burnett sitting at a sound booth in his church, These photographs accurately depict the crime scene and the victim, and are therefore not rendered inadmissible simply because they may be gruesome or shocking. Walker, 258 Va. at 69, 515 S.E.2d at 574 (citing Walton v. Commonwealth, 256 Va. 85, 92, 501 S.E.2d 134, 138, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 119 S.Ct. 602, 142 L.Ed.2d 544 (1998)). The photographs are relevant to show motive, intent, method, malice, premeditation and the atrociousness of [the defendant's] crimes. Chichester v. Commonwealth, 248 Va. 311, 326, 448 S.E.2d 638, 648 (1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1166, 115 S.Ct. 1134, 130 L.Ed.2d 1095 (1995) (quoting Spencer, 238 Va. at 312, 384 S.E.2d at 796). Any prejudice to the defendant resulting from the admission of the photographs is outweighed by the photographs' probative value. See Coe v. Commonwealth, 231 Va. 83, 87, 340 S.E.2d 820, 823 (1986) (holding probative value of evidence must be balanced against any prejudicial effect). On appeal, we will not disturb a trial court's exercise of discretion in balancing those competing considerations absent a clear abuse of discretion. Id. Furthermore, the defendant's stipulation with regard to the cause of Burnett's death does not preempt the introduction of the photographs into evidence. See Mackall v. Commonwealth, 236 Va. 240, 253, 372 S.E.2d 759, 767-68 (1988), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 925, 109 S.Ct. 3261, 106 L.Ed.2d 607 (1989) (holding autopsy photograph of victim was admissible even if defendant stipulated identity of victim). Thus, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the photographs. See Clagett v. Commonwealth, 252 Va. 79, 87, 472 S.E.2d 263, 268 (1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1122, 117 S.Ct. 972, 136 L.Ed.2d 856 (1997) (The admission into evidence of photographs of the body of a murder victim is left to the sound discretion of the trial court and will be disturbed only upon a showing of a clear abuse of discretion.).
Finally, in assignment of error number five, the defendant claims that he was prejudiced by the court's refusal to permit him to mail a questionnaire to each prospective juror. On brief, the defendant also argues that he was denied a full and fair opportunity to examine the venire because the circuit court did not allow him to conduct individual voir dire. The defendant did not include the issue regarding individual voir dire in an assignment of error. Therefore, we will not consider it. Rule 5:17(c). As to the issue properly preserved, we find no error in the circuit court's judgment. The manner in which voir dire is conducted lies within the trial court's discretion, and its decisions concerning voir dire will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Fisher v. Commonwealth, 236 Va. 403, 410-41, 374 S.E.2d 46, 50 (1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1028, 109 S.Ct. 1766, 104 L.Ed.2d 201 (1989). We have previously decided that a trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow a defendant to send a questionnaire to prospective jurors. Hedrick v. Commonwealth, 257 Va. 328, 337, 513 S.E.2d 634, 639 (1999); Strickler v. Commonwealth, 241 Va. 482, 489-90, 404 S.E.2d 227, 232, cert. denied, 502 U.S. 944, 112 S.Ct. 386, 116 L.Ed.2d 337 (1991). Such a practice would detract from the trial judge's `opportunity to observe and evaluate ... prospective jurors first hand.' Id. at 490, 404 S.E.2d at 232 (quoting Pope v. Commonwealth, 234 Va. 114, 124, 360 S.E.2d 352, 358 (1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1015, 108 S.Ct. 1489, 99 L.Ed.2d 716 (1988)). [T]he opportunity to see and hear the veniremen, when questioned during voir dire, is crucial to the effective discharge of the trial judge's responsibility. Strickler, 241 Va. at 490, 404 S.E.2d at 232. Thus, we conclude that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion. [13]