Court Opinion

ID: 9367253
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-31 14:11:40.350772+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:58.679769
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

              Present: Judges Beales, Ortiz and Causey
UNPUBLISHED

              Argued at Lexington, Virginia

              SADIQ AQUEEL ADAMS
                                                                              MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
              v.      Record No. 0873-22-3                                      JUDGE DANIEL E. ORTIZ
                                                                                   JANUARY 31, 2023
              COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

                                  FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE
                                              J. Christopher Clemens, Judge

                                J. Thomas Love, Jr. (Office of the Public Defender, on brief), for
                                appellant.

                                John Beamer, Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares,
                                Attorney General; Maureen E. Mshar, Assistant Attorney General,
                                on brief), for appellee.

                      Sadiq Aqueel Adams appeals a jury conviction of two counts of assault and battery on a law

              enforcement officer. He argues that the trial court erred by giving a jury instruction that “[a]n

              individual has no right to use force to resist an unlawful detention.” Because the jury instruction is

              an accurate statement of law, the trial court did not abuse its discretion, and we affirm the

              convictions.

                                                          BACKGROUND

                      On May 23, 2020, around 9:30 p.m., Adams and his extended family were leaving

              Golden Park after a picnic, when they saw an elderly man attacked by three young people.

              Adams and a few family members walked toward the elderly man, and the three young people

                      *
                          Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
ran away. The elderly man was “bleeding from the head.” Adams and his family returned to

their car.

        At 9:48 p.m., Sergeant Call, Officer Foster, and Officer McKee of the Roanoke City

Police Department arrived at Golden Park, responding to a report of “shots fired.” The officers

saw “three to four vehicles” and a “gathering of people.” The officers’ body cameras recorded

most of their interactions with the people at scene. The elderly man told Sergeant Call that some

“teenagers” had tried to assault him and that a gun was involved. Officer McKee talked to a

group of young people across the park, who were “cooperative,” “provided their information,”

and consented to a search. Officer McKee did not find a weapon on them. Sergeant Call and

Officer McKee walked toward Officer Foster as they heard loud noises from his direction.

        Officer Foster tried to get information from Adams and his family members. Adams was

initially “forthcoming” and told Officer Foster that “there was somewhat of a fight there that he

had to break up.” Adams and his family denied hearing any shots fired. When Officer Foster

asked Adams to identify himself, he refused, became “agitated,” and walked back to his family’s

vehicle. He was “cursing” and “very animated,” insisting that he “was not involved” and did not

have to tell Officer Foster anything.

        While Adams and Officer Foster were arguing, Officer McKee approached the vehicle

and determined that the situation was “dangerous,” because it was at night, several people were

in the vehicle, and the firearm “could be in the vehicle.” Officer McKee told Adams to “step out

of the vehicle” from the back seat because he was being detained. The officers opened the door

and tried to pull Adams out of the vehicle as Adams resisted and pulled away. Officer McKee

threatened Adams with pepper spray but refrained from using it after learning that young

children were in the vehicle. Adams held on to the headrest in front of him as the officers

continued trying to remove him from the vehicle. Suddenly, Adams lunged out of the vehicle,

                                               -2-
punched Officer Foster in the left eye, and then punched Officer McKee in the right eye. The

officers pushed Adams against the car, and then to the ground, as Adams continued to resist and

scream. After fist-striking Adams several times and knee-striking him in his upper thigh, the

officers managed to handcuff him with his hands behind his back.

       Officer Foster’s left orbital bone was fractured in four places as a result of Adams’

punch. He was diagnosed with a severe concussion and nerve damage in his left temple and

continued to suffer from intermittent headaches and blurry vision. Officer McKee was

diagnosed with a concussion and continued to suffer from mild vision change. Adams suffered a

lip laceration and a sore shoulder.

       The elderly man initially attacked by the three young people “disappeared” while the

officers interacted with Adams. The officers did not obtain his name.

       Adams was charged with malicious wounding of a law enforcement officer. He moved

to suppress “all evidence” obtained from the “unlawful stop,” arguing that the officers “lacked

reasonable articulable suspicion or probable cause to remove the defendant from the vehicle.”

The trial court denied the motion to suppress, finding that the “police did not violate defendant’s

constitutional rights when they stopped him on May 24, 2020.” At trial, the court denied

Adams’ motion to strike and took his renewed motion to strike under advisement. The

Commonwealth objected to the jury instruction of self-defense. Adams objected to Jury

Instruction Six, which stated that “[a]n individual has no right to use force to resist an unlawful

detention.” The trial court denied both objections and noted that although “these two

Instructions may seem juxtaposed . . . the totality of the evidence that has been elicited today

called into question the Court’s Ruling with respect to the detention previously on the case.”

       The jury convicted Adams of the lesser-included charge of assault and battery of a law

enforcement officer. Adams appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in giving the jury

                                                -3-
Instruction Six. He concedes that the issue was not properly preserved under Rule 5A:18 but

argues that the “ends of justice” exception applies. See Rule 5A:18 (“No 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.”).

                                            ANALYSIS

        Even if Adams had properly preserved the issue at trial under Rule 5A:18, his argument

that Jury Instruction Six contained an inaccurate statement of law fails on the merits. “[O]ur

jurisprudence requires us to seek ‘the best and narrowest ground available’ for our decision.”

Abdo v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 468, 473 n.1 (2015) (quoting Armstead v. Commonwealth,

56 Va. App. 569, 576 (2010)). “In this case, resolution of the merits constitutes the best and

narrowest ground.” Id. “Accordingly, we decline to decide whether Rule 5A:18 precludes a

litigant from raising” his argument and turn to the merits of Adams’ appeal. Id.

                                       I. Standard of review

        This Court generally reviews a trial court’s decisions in giving and denying jury

instructions for abuse of discretion. Howsare v. Commonwealth, 293 Va. 439, 443 (2017).

However, “whether a jury instruction accurately states the relevant law is a question of law that

we review de novo.” Watson v. Commonwealth, 298 Va. 197, 207 (2019). “[A] jury instruction

must not be submitted to the jury unless the evidence asserted in support of such an instruction

amounts to more than a scintilla.” Turman v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 558, 564 (2008).

      II. The trial court did not err in granting Jury Instruction Six because it is an accurate
          statement of law.

        Our Supreme Court held in Commonwealth v. Hill, 264 Va. 541, 548 (2002), that “a

person in this Commonwealth does not have the right to use force to resist an unlawful detention

or ‘pat down’ search,” as opposed to an “unlawful arrest.” The Supreme Court reasoned that the

                                                -4-
prolonged and complete restraint on liberty, as well as the indelible record, that may result from

an arrest distinguish it from a “a protective search for weapons or other investigative detention.”

Id. at 547. Jury Instruction Six accurately recites the Supreme Court’s holding in Hill.1 In

addition, there was more than a “scintilla” of evidence that Adams used force to resist an

unlawful detention by punching the two officers, fracturing Officer Foster’s orbital bone in four

places. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving Jury Instruction Six.

       Adams advocates for a “change in the law” in response to “systemic abuses in police

practices.” Given the Supreme Court’s holding in Hill, this Court is powerless to consider the

argument, as “[w]e are bound by decisions of the Supreme Court of Virginia and are without

authority to overrule them.” Tart v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 384, 392 (1993). We cannot

conclude that the trial court erred in adhering to the Supreme Court’s decision in Hill.

       Adams further seeks to distinguish the detention of witnesses from the detention of

criminal suspects. This argument pertains to whether the detention was unlawful, not to whether

Adams had the right to use force to resist an unlawful detention. Thus, it is irrelevant to the

assignment of error.

                                          CONCLUSION

       Because the trial court did not err in giving Jury Instruction Six, we affirm the

convictions.

                                                                                            Affirmed.

       1
         Jury Instruction Six states, “An individual has no right to use force to resist an unlawful
detention.”
                                                -5-