Court Opinion

ID: 9897809
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:25:23.56771+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:30.420546
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
UNPUBLISHED

              Present: Judges Beales, Huff and Chaney
              Argued at Norfolk, Virginia

              DARRELL DELANO WASHINGTON
                                                                              MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
              v.      Record No. 0756-22-1                                    JUDGE VERNIDA R. CHANEY
                                                                                 SEPTEMBER 12, 2023
              COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

                                  FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK
                                               John R. Doyle, III, Judge

                               Trevor Jared Robinson for appellant.

                               Mason D. Williams, Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares,
                               Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

                      Following a bench trial, the trial court convicted Darrell Delano Washington of aggravated

              sexual battery. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, asserting that the trial court erred by

              rejecting his explanation for the presence of his DNA material on the victim’s clothing. For the

              reasons below, this Court affirms the trial court’s judgment.

                                                        BACKGROUND

                      On appeal, we recite the facts “in the ‘light most favorable’ to the Commonwealth, the

              prevailing party in the trial court.” Hammer v. Commonwealth, 74 Va. App. 225, 231 (2022)

              (quoting Commonwealth v. Cady, 300 Va. 325, 329 (2021)). Doing so requires us to “discard the

              evidence of the accused in conflict with that of the Commonwealth, and regard as true all the

              credible evidence favorable to the Commonwealth and all fair inferences to be drawn therefrom.”

              Cady, 300 Va. at 329 (quoting Commonwealth v. Perkins, 295 Va. 323, 324 (2018)).

                      *
                          This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413(A).
       On the evening of December 2, 2019, Washington visited K.W., his thirteen-year-old niece,

at his sister’s new townhome. Washington’s sister was not at home, but K.W.’s cousins, “Chris”

and L.G. were there. Upon Washington’s arrival, he followed K.W. to her bedroom and announced

he had brought a projector for her to use. Washington entered the bedroom, set up the projector,

and played the movie Spiderman. When Washington entered the bedroom with the projector,

thirteen-year-old L.G. was already asleep on a mattress on the floor. After the movie, K.W. laid

next to L.G. on the mattress, pulled a blanket over her, and fell asleep as Washington watched

pornography on the projector.

       Between 2:00 and 3:00 a.m., L.G. felt movement around her feet and awakened. K.W., a

self-described “deep sleeper,” was still asleep. L.G. saw Washington was “on his knees” at the foot

of the mattress; he told L.G. he was “looking for a container . . . a plastic bowl.” L.G. began

looking for the bowl and roused K.W. to solicit her help. When K.W. awoke, however, she realized

that her pants, her “tight fitting” shorts over her pants, and her underwear were below her knees.

K.W. yelled, “Why is [sic] my pants down?” She saw Washington on his knees next to her. K.W.

pulled up her clothes, swore at Washington, and demanded that he leave the house.

       Washington exited the bedroom, but he remained outside the door. After telling him again

to leave the house, K.W. entered the bathroom and examined her body. When she checked her

buttocks in the mirror, she saw “white clear stuff,” “between [her] butt trailing down.” She wiped

herself with tissues, discarded them in the bathroom trashcan, and pulled up her pants.

       K.W. reported the incident to her mother the next day after school. Her mother took her to

the hospital, where a physical examination was performed and Detective Siegel interviewed her. At

Detective Siegel’s request, K.W. and her mother collected the clothes she was wearing during the

incident, her comforter, and the contents of her bathroom trashcan. They bagged the items and

provided them to Detective Siegel on December 4, 2019.

                                                 -2-
        Forensic analysis determined that male DNA material was on the waistband of K.W.’s

shorts and spermatozoa were “outside back right cheek” of the shorts. Forensic scientist Jessica

Posto developed a “DNA profile” from the spermatozoa on the shorts and compared it to

Washington’s DNA sample. Posto concluded Washington could not be eliminated as a contributor

to the spermatozoa and “the probability of randomly selecting an unrelated individual with a DNA

profile matching that developed from the sperm . . . [wa]s 1 in greater than 7.2 billion, . . .

approximately the world population in the Caucasian, African American, and Hispanic

populations.”

        Washington testified in his own defense. He did not dispute that his DNA and sperm were

on K.W.’s shorts, but he maintained that he deposited them on clothing discarded by K.W.

Washington stated that, during his visit to K.W.’s home, he entered the bathroom at approximately

2:00 a.m. According to Washington, K.W. had showered in the bathroom earlier and had left her

shorts and underwear on the floor. He claimed that he masturbated in the bathroom and “ejaculated

onto the shorts.” Afterward, Washington wiped the semen from his penis with some tissues and

placed the soiled tissues in the trashcan. Washington stated that, after he left the bathroom, he

returned to “the room” and ran “diagnostics” on his computer. Washington claimed that after K.W.

visited the bathroom again, she was “yelling and screaming” about “what [Washington] had done”

with her shorts. K.W. demanded that Washington collect his belongings and leave the house.

        At the conclusion of the evidence, Washington argued that K.W.’s testimony was not

credible. The trial court rejected his argument, finding that K.W.’s and L.G.’s accounts were “quite

consistent” and that Washington’s “explanation [was not] credible at all.” Accordingly, the trial

court convicted Washington of aggravated sexual battery. Washington appeals.

                                                  -3-
                                            ANALYSIS

       “When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, ‘[t]he judgment of the trial court is

presumed correct and will not be disturbed unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to

support it.’” McGowan v. Commonwealth, 72 Va. App. 513, 521 (2020) (alteration in original)

(quoting Smith v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 450, 460 (2018)). “In such cases, ‘[t]he Court does

not ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a

reasonable doubt.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Secret v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 204,

228 (2018)). “Rather, the relevant question is whether ‘any rational trier of fact could have

found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Vasquez v.

Commonwealth, 291 Va. 232, 248 (2016) (quoting Williams v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 190, 193

(2009)). “If there is evidentiary support for the conviction, ‘the reviewing court is not permitted

to substitute its own judgment, even if its opinion might differ from the conclusions reached by

the finder of fact at the trial.’” McGowan, 72 Va. App. at 521 (quoting Chavez v.

Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 149, 161 (2018)).

       Washington asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for

aggravated sexual battery1 because “the totality of the evidence clearly demonstrated [his]

innocence.” He maintains that the trial court erred by rejecting his “very detailed” explanation

for the presence of his DNA on K.W.’s clothing. We disagree.

       “The credibility of the witnesses and the weight accorded the evidence are matters solely

for the fact finder who has the opportunity to see and hear that evidence as it is presented.”

       1
          Code § 18.2-67.3(A)(2) provides that “[a]n accused shall be guilty of aggravated sexual
battery if he . . . sexually abuses the complaining witness, and . . . [t]he act is accomplished
through the use of the complaining witness’s mental incapacity or physical helplessness.” Code
§ 18.2-67.10(6)(a) defines “sexual abuse” as “an act committed with the intent to sexually
molest, arouse, or gratify any person, where . . . [t]he accused intentionally touches the
complaining witness’s intimate parts or material directly covering such intimate parts.”
                                                 -4-
Elliott v. Commonwealth, 277 Va. 457, 462 (2009). This Court gives “deference to the fact

finder who, having seen and heard the witnesses, assesses their credibility and weighs their

testimony.” Id. Thus, this Court must accept “the trial court’s determination of the credibility of

witness testimony unless, ‘as a matter of law, the testimony is inherently incredible.’” Nobrega

v. Commonwealth, 271 Va. 508, 518 (2006) (quoting Walker v. Commonwealth, 258 Va. 54,

70-71 (1999)). “Evidence is not ‘incredible’ unless it is ‘so manifestly false that reasonable men

ought not to believe it’ or ‘shown to be false by objects or things as to the existence and meaning

of which reasonable men should not differ.’” Gerald v. Commonwealth, 295 Va. 469, 487

(2018) (quoting Juniper v. Commonwealth, 271 Va. 362, 415 (2006)).

       “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. McNeal, 282 Va. 16, 22 (2011)

(quoting Taylor v. Commonwealth, 256 Va. 514, 518 (1998)). Although K.W.’s testimony did not

require corroboration to be credible, a rational fact finder could find that her account was

corroborated by independent evidence. See Wilson v. Commonwealth, 46 Va. App. 73, 87 (2005)

(“[A] conviction for rape and other sexual offenses may be sustained solely upon the

uncorroborated testimony of the victim.”).

       K.W. testified that Washington was watching pornography in her bedroom when she fell

asleep. Later that night, she awoke to find him kneeling near her and her pants and underwear

pulled down. L.G. corroborated K.W.’s testimony, confirming that Washington was moving

around them in the middle of the night as he purportedly searched for a plastic bowl.

Immediately after K.W. awakened, she found “white clear stuff” between her buttocks.

Consistent with that discovery, forensic analysis determined that Washington’s sperm and DNA

were on the back of her shorts. Although Washington maintained that he deposited his sperm on

                                                 -5-
the shorts when K.W. was not wearing them, the trial court reasonably rejected Washington’s

self-serving explanation and was entitled to conclude that he was “lying to conceal his guilt.”

Flanagan v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 681, 702 (2011) (quoting Marable v. Commonwealth,

27 Va. App. 505, 509-10 (1998)). Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a

reasonable doubt that Washington was guilty of aggravated sexual battery.

                                         CONCLUSION

       For the foregoing reasons, this Court affirms the trial court’s judgment.

                                                                                         Affirmed.

                                               -6-