Court Opinion

ID: 9384563
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-04 13:10:01.207444+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:54.488681
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

              Present: Judges Humphreys, White and Retired Judge Frank*
UNPUBLISHED

              WILLIAM DANIEL JACKSON
                                                                               MEMORANDUM OPINION**
              v.      Record No. 1185-22-3                                         PER CURIAM
                                                                                   APRIL 4, 2023
              COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

                                   FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CAMPBELL COUNTY
                                                 John T. Cook, Judge

                                (M. Kevin Bailey; M. Kevin Bailey, PLLC, on brief), for appellant.
                                Appellant submitting on brief.

                                (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General; William K. Hamilton, Assistant
                                Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

                      Following a bench trial, the Campbell County Circuit Court convicted William Daniel

              Jackson of malicious wounding and obstruction of justice. On appeal, Jackson argues the evidence

              was insufficient to prove malice and his “intent to maim, disfigure, disable, or kill” the victim.1

              After examining the briefs and record in this case, the panel unanimously holds that oral argument is

              unnecessary because “the appeal is wholly without merit.” Code § 17.1-403(ii)(a); Rule 5A:27(a).

                      *
                      Retired Judge Frank took part in the consideration of this case by designation pursuant to
              Code § 17.1-400(D).
                      **
                           This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413.
                      1
                       Jackson included an assignment of error challenging his conviction for obstruction of
              justice but abandoned that argument on brief. Given the waiver, we do not address his
              assignment of error regarding the obstruction of justice conviction. See Rule 5A:20(e) (requiring
              argument and authorities); Jay v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 510 (2008).
                                          BACKGROUND

        On October 29, 2021, Edith Cardwell arrived home to find Jackson, her former boyfriend,

standing in her yard. After she took Jackson to run errands at his request, he spent approximately an

hour outside before entering Cardwell’s home. Smelling of alcohol, Jackson asked Cardwell to

marry him. Cardwell told Jackson to “get on out of [her] way” and walked to her kitchen. The next

thing Cardwell knew, she was “laying on the floor,” felt “pressure like [Jackson] was stepping on

[her] shoulder,” and saw him “standing over top of” her “with [a] pipe in his hand.” The pipe had

been used as a doorstop in Cardwell’s home. Cardwell “felt a warm sensation” and found blood

when she touched the back of her head. She told Jackson, “I know you did not hit me with that

pipe. I ain’t done nothing. I ain’t done nothing.” Jackson denied hitting her. Cardwell then tended

to her wound and went to her bedroom to call 911.

        Campbell County Sheriff’s Deputies arrived and, following a scuffle with Jackson,

recovered a bloody metal pipe from Cardwell’s home. Cardwell was transported to the hospital by

ambulance, where she received x-rays to her shoulder and back and “three or four” stitches to her

head.

        After the conclusion of the Commonwealth’s evidence at trial, Jackson moved to strike the

malicious wounding charge because of “inconsistencies” in Cardwell’s statements to the officer on

the scene and her testimony at trial. The circuit court denied Jackson’s motion to strike, and then

Jackson testified. Jackson averred that Cardwell was jealous over Jackson’s earlier interactions with

a young woman and had threatened him with a pair of scissors. Jackson denied hitting Cardwell

with the pipe, or even picking up the pipe. He indicated that he “didn’t know [Cardwell] was

injured” and that “it could have been ketchup” on her head and neck.

        At closing argument, defense counsel stated, “I think if the Court finds that the Defendant

struck Ms. Cardwell in the head with this object, I think the other elements are there for malicious

                                                 -2-
wounding. It comes down to whether he did or didn’t do it.” Defense counsel again asserted that

Cardwell had been inconsistent in some of her statements and argued that the case “comes down to

credibility” of the testimony as between Cardwell and Jackson.

        Having heard all the evidence, the circuit court noted that although “Cardwell had some

inconsistencies” in her testimony, she had been consistent about the main issue in the case, that

Jackson “hit her with this pipe” and that her injuries corroborated her account. To credit Jackson’s

testimony, the circuit court indicated, it would have to find that Cardwell inflicted the injuries to

herself. After viewing Jackson on the stand, and considering “the way he testified” and his criminal

record, the circuit court “did not find [Jackson] credible on the issue whether there was a malicious

wounding.” Jackson timely appealed.

                                               ANALYSIS

        Jackson argues on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction of

malicious wounding because “malice cannot be inferred from the Commonwealth’s evidence

presented at trial.” He also argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he “had the intent

to maim, disfigure, disable, or kill the alleged victim.”

        Rule 5A:18 provides, in pertinent part, that “[n]o ruling of the trial court . . . will be

considered as a basis for reversal unless an objection was stated with reasonable certainty at the time

of the ruling, except for good cause shown or to enable this Court to attain the ends of justice.” The

Rule “requires a litigant to articulate an objection with specificity ‘so that the trial judge . . . know[s]

the particular point being made in time to do something about it.’” Hicks v. Commonwealth, 71

Va. App. 255, 266 (2019) (alterations in original) (quoting Thomas v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App.

741, 750, adopted upon reh’g en banc, 45 Va. App. 811 (2005)). A defendant’s failure to object to

the sufficiency of the evidence “is a waiver of that issue just as if the defendant ‘failed to object to

                                                   -3-
any other matter at trial.’” Murrillo-Rodriguez v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 64, 80 (2010) (quoting

White v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 231, 233 (1986)).

         At trial, Jackson argued that the victim-witness, Cardwell, was not a credible witness

because of some inconsistencies in her statements. He conceded that if the circuit court found that

Jackson was the perpetrator, then the Commonwealth had established the elements of malicious

wounding; but, he argued that the Commonwealth did not adequately prove Jackson was the

perpetrator because the Commonwealth’s witness lacked credibility. Jackson did not argue at trial

that the Commonwealth failed to prove the malicious wounding elements of malice and intent.

Argument at trial regarding witness credibility and challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to

prove identity does not preserve for appeal argument regarding the sufficiency of the evidence to

prove malice and intent. Therefore, Jackson’s assignments of error are defaulted pursuant to Rule

5A:18.

                                           CONCLUSION

         For these reasons, the circuit court’s judgment is affirmed.

                                                                                                  Affirmed.

                                                 -4-