Court Opinion

ID: 9960471
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-16 14:17:13.573866+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:30.742834
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

              Present: Judges Athey, Friedman and Raphael
UNPUBLISHED

              Argued at Richmond, Virginia

              WILLIAM HARRY ROBERTS
                                                                           MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
              v.     Record No. 0180-23-2                                  JUDGE STUART A. RAPHAEL
                                                                                 APRIL 16, 2024
              COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

                                 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LUNENBURG COUNTY
                                             J. William Watson, Jr., Judge

                              Samantha Offutt Thames, Senior Assistant Public Defender (Virginia
                              Indigent Defense Commission, on briefs), for appellant.

                              Robert D. Bauer, Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares,
                              Attorney General; Leah A. Darron, Senior Assistant Attorney
                              General, on brief), for appellee.

                     After holding his mother-in-law at knifepoint and threatening to dismember her, William

              Harry Roberts was convicted of various crimes. He challenges only his convictions for

              attempted murder, robbery, and abduction. We reject his claim that the Commonwealth failed to

              prove that he committed those offenses. And we find unpersuasive his challenges to two

              evidentiary rulings. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting into evidence

              Roberts’s recorded jailhouse call with his estranged wife in which Roberts admitted wrongdoing

              and pressed her to help dismiss the charges. We reject his argument that the call was

              inadmissible because it showed he was in jail. We likewise find no abuse of discretion in the

              trial court’s admitting the recording of the 911 call in which the wife reported her mother’s

              abduction. Roberts argues that the tape was exculpatory and should have been produced earlier

                     *
                         This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413(A).
than several days before trial. But he conceded that the prosecutor turned over the recording as

soon as she had it. And Roberts declined the trial court’s offer of a continuance if Roberts

needed more time. So we affirm his convictions.

                                          BACKGROUND

       On appeal, we review the evidence “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 that we “discard”

the defendant’s evidence when it conflicts with the Commonwealth’s evidence, “regard as true

all the credible evidence favorable to the Commonwealth,” and read “all fair inferences” in the

Commonwealth’s favor. Cady, 300 Va. at 329 (quoting Commonwealth v. Perkins, 295 Va. 323,

324 (2018)).

       In 2020, Roberts and his wife, T.R. (“wife”), had been married for 20 years and were

living together in Lunenburg County. Wife’s mother, P.W.B. (“mother”), moved in with the

couple in October 2020. Mother’s leg had been amputated, and she used a motorized wheelchair

for mobility.

       Roberts’s relationship with wife was deteriorating when mother moved in with them.

Roberts was “[s]uper controlling” and “monitor[ed]” everything wife was doing. Wife and

mother walked on “pins and needles” around him. They “couldn’t speak, couldn’t laugh,

couldn’t play with [their] phones” for fear that Roberts would snap into a rage.

       In late November, wife told Roberts that she wanted a divorce. In December, Roberts

moved out of the house and into a hotel. He was angry and “[r]eligiously” texted wife,

sometimes using other people’s phones to contact her because he knew she wouldn’t answer his

call. Sometimes wife responded. Sometimes she ignored his messages and calls. She felt

                                               -2-
“overwhelm[ed].” Around Christmas, wife moved out of the house and in with her boyfriend.

Mother stayed in the home alone, feeling ready to be more independent.

       Roberts repeatedly called wife on Christmas day. She answered once but hung up

another time after he started “cussing” at her. Roberts repeatedly texted her. When she did not

respond, he sent her a picture of a knife, texting that he was “done talking.” Wife was

“unnerved” by the texts. She worried about her mother staying alone in the house. Wife invited

mother to stay with her instead, but mother declined.

       On the night of December 26, mother developed a “terrible feeling” that if she dozed off,

Roberts would kill her in her sleep. So mother avoided bed, remaining in her wheelchair.

Mother stayed up all night. By dawn on December 27, she was weary. Feeling safer that it was

light out, mother put down her phone and started to move from her wheelchair to the bed. She

had one leg out of the wheelchair when Roberts burst through her bedroom door, knife in hand.

“[T]his is your day to die,” he said.

       Roberts grabbed mother’s phone. Then he disengaged the joystick on her wheelchair and

assumed control over it.1 Roberts wheeled her into the living room and locked the wheelchair in

place. Mother pleaded, “[W]hy are you doing this, . . . I’ve always treated you like a son.”

Roberts answered that wife “took his world,” so “he’s taking hers.”

       Roberts badgered mother about where wife was living and with whom. He scrolled

through mother’s cellphone messages and accused her of lying about wife’s whereabouts.

Roberts grew enraged. His forehead turned red. Mother feared for her life.

       1
          The wheelchair’s occupant uses a joystick to control it. The joystick is disengaged by
flipping two levers on the back. When that happens, the user can no longer control the chair, but
someone else can push the chair from behind.
                                              -3-
        Roberts used mother’s phone to call wife. Wife answered, thinking it was mother, but

wife realized that Roberts had broken into the home. Wife demanded that Roberts give the

phone back to mother and leave. But Roberts refused.

        Roberts asked wife where she was; she said it was “none of his business.” Roberts swore

at her and warned, “[I]t’s going to be your business because I have your mother and I’m going to

kill her.” He said that “he had lost something that he loved,” so wife would lose something she

loved too.

        When asked what he meant, Roberts said he “was going to start cutting” off mother’s toes

on her remaining leg. Mother’s bare foot lay exposed on the wheelchair footrest. Roberts placed

the blade of his knife between mother’s toes and then moved the knife to the top of her foot. He

warned wife she had 15 minutes to get there before he would “start with the toes,” then cut off

mother’s “foot,” then her “leg, and then . . . her head.” Wife heard mother screaming, “he’s

really gonna do it”!

        Wife told Roberts she could not get there that fast because she was in Farmville, more

than an hour away. Roberts responded he had “masturbated fifteen times in the hotel and that

wasn’t enough,” so when wife got there, he was “going to rape [her] anally and then kill [her].”

He threatened to slit her throat. Over the phone, wife heard mother crying and begging Roberts

not to hurt her.

        Wife called 911 and reported that Roberts was holding mother “hostage at knife point and

was going to kill her.”2 Multiple law-enforcement officers arrived at the home: Sergeant Brian

        2
          Wife couldn’t recall if she used two phones to remain on the line with Roberts and call
911, or if she put Roberts on hold to call 911 and then merged the calls. Wife testified that she
remained on the phone with the dispatcher until after the incident was over. But the recording of
her 911 call indicates that the call ended after wife relayed the information to the dispatcher.
                                                 -4-
Burns from the Lunenburg County Sheriff’s Office, and Trooper Benjamin Rhodes and Sergeant

Keith Pearce from the Virginia State Police.

       After opening the front door a crack and seeing a police car, Roberts became enraged,

“swearing and cussing” at wife for calling the police. He said that he and mother would not

“make it out alive.” Wife tried to reason with him, urging that he turn himself in, but Roberts

wouldn’t listen. Wheeling mother from the living room to the dining room, Roberts took up a

defensive position behind her. He held the knife in one hand and used his other to control her

head by grabbing her hair.

       Sergeant Pearce and Trooper Rhodes approached the front door and knocked. They

heard yelling inside. Roberts threatened to cut mother’s throat if they came in. Mother yelled

that Roberts was holding a knife to her throat. Roberts shouted at them, “get the f--- out.”

       The officers stayed on the front porch and called for a “tact team” and hostage

negotiators. But before anyone else could get there, the officers heard more screaming from

inside. Trooper Rhodes believed that Roberts was trying “to cut [mother’s] throat or to harm

her.” Sergeant Burns kicked in the door, taser in his hand, leading the other officers inside.

       Burns saw mother in the wheelchair with Roberts standing right behind her, “something

silver” in his hand. Burns tased him. When Roberts fell to the floor, Burns saw the silver object

fly out of his hand. Roberts resisted as the officers tried to place him in handcuffs. He cursed at

them and tried to goad them into shooting him.

       After Roberts was handcuffed, Burns turned to mother. She was “very distraught,” and

her neck was wounded. It appeared that some skin had been sliced off. Burns recovered a silver

knife with a red handle on the floor where he had tased Roberts. Roberts was taken into custody.

       While being held in the county jail, Roberts called wife on a recorded telephone line. An

automated voice identified that the call was coming from an inmate. Roberts apologized to wife

                                                -5-
for what he had done. He said he would “move away” and asked wife and mother to “get the

charges dropped.” The call lasted 6 minutes and 29 seconds.

          The grand jury indicted Roberts on charges of abduction by force, attempted malicious

wounding, attempted assault and battery of a law enforcement officer, attempted murder,

robbery, using profane language over public airways, and multiple counts of violating a

protective order. Before trial, Roberts moved to exclude the recording of the jailhouse telephone

call on the ground that it “needlessly” revealed that he was incarcerated. The trial court denied

the motion.

          Roberts also moved to exclude the recording of the 911 call, arguing that it was provided

to defense counsel “less than five business days from trial.” Roberts conceded, however, that the

prosecutor had given him the recording “the minute she had it.” The Commonwealth responded

that the contents of the 911 call were no surprise to Roberts. The substance had been “largely

summarized” in statements provided to Roberts from the responding officers and from wife. The

trial court denied the motion.

          A three-day jury trial began on March 1, 2022. After the trial court denied his motion to

strike, Roberts called Sergeant Burns as an adverse witness and rested. The trial court denied

Roberts’s renewed motion to strike. The jury found Roberts guilty of attempted murder,

abduction, robbery, and making threats over the phone. Roberts later pleaded no-contest to

attempted assault and battery of a law-enforcement officer and to two violations of a protective

order. The trial court sentenced Roberts to 35 years and 36 months of incarceration, with 25

years and 36 months suspended, for an active sentence of 10 years. Roberts noted a timely

appeal.

                                                 -6-
                                             ANALYSIS

       Roberts challenges only his convictions for attempted murder, robbery, and abduction.

He raises five assignments of error.

                       A. The phone call from jail (Assignment of Error I)

       The “‘admissibility of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court,’ and an

appellate court will not reject such decision absent an ‘abuse of discretion.’” Williams v.

Commonwealth, 71 Va. App. 462, 487 (2020) (quoting Tirado v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 15, 26

(2018)). A trial court “by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law.”

Landrum v. Chippenham & Johnston-Willis Hosps., Inc., 282 Va. 346, 357 (2011). We review

constitutional issues presenting questions of law de novo. Ali v. Commonwealth, 75 Va. App.

16, 33 (2022).

       Roberts argues that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence the recording of his

telephone call to wife from jail. Roberts relies on Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (1976),

where the Supreme Court held that it would violate a defendant’s right to a fair trial under the

Fourteenth Amendment to force a defendant to appear in prison garb during a jury trial. Id. at

504-05. Roberts argues that the telephone recording revealed to the jury that he was in jail when

he called wife, so the recording should have been excluded.

       The analogy to Estelle is unpersuasive. Estelle hinged on the need to ensure the

presumption of innocence by “carefully guard[ing] against dilution of the principle that guilt is to

be established by probative evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 503 (emphasis

added). How the defendant is dressed during his jury trial is irrelevant to whether he committed

the offenses charged. Thus, “compelling an accused to wear jail clothing furthers no essential

state policy.” Id. at 505. Worse, the defendant’s jail “clothing is so likely to be a continuing

                                                -7-
influence throughout the trial that . . . an unacceptable risk is presented of impermissible factors

coming into play.” Id.

       Those considerations do not justify excluding the recording of Roberts’s incriminating

telephone call to wife from jail. Unlike the irrelevance of a defendant’s courtroom attire, this

call was “probative evidence,” id. at 503, of Roberts’s consciousness of guilt. Roberts told wife

he was sorry, acknowledged “it’s my fault,” and asked wife and mother to “drop the charges.”

He admitted, “I made a big mistake and I know I did and I’m really really sorry for it.” And

unlike the concern in Estelle about a defendant’s appearing in prison garb throughout trial, a

“constant reminder” to the jury of his incarceration, Estelle, 425 U.S. at 504, the jail references

in this recording were intermittent and fleeting. We see nothing in Estelle that would require

trial courts to exclude a defendant’s incriminating statements whenever they are made in a

telephone call in which the defendant’s incarcerated status is apparent. Moreover, Roberts did

not request a limiting instruction about the jail references, nor did he argue that the jail

references could and should have been redacted.

       In short, because Roberts’s statements on the call to his wife from jail were probative of

guilt, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the recording into evidence.

                              B. The 911 call (Assignment of Error II)

       Roberts argues that the recording of the 911 call should have been excluded as a “late

disclosure” in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). “[T]he suppression by the

prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the

evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of

the prosecution.” Id. at 87. To constitute a Brady violation, however, “[t]he evidence at issue

must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching;

that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and

                                                 -8-
prejudice must have ensued.” Coley v. Commonwealth, 55 Va. App. 624, 631 (2010) (quoting

Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281-82 (1999)). The defendant bears the burden to establish a

Brady violation. Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 536 (2010).

       Roberts argues that the recording of the 911 call was exculpatory and usable as

impeachment material because wife “had been saying that she was in a hotel, not at her

boyfriend’s house in Cumberland,” from where she placed the call. We assume without deciding

that the recording qualifies as impeachment evidence under Brady.3 Even so, Roberts failed to

carry his burden to show that the late disclosure resulted in prejudice.

       “Brady is not violated, as a matter of law, when impeachment evidence is made

‘available to [a] defendant[] during trial’ if the defendant has ‘sufficient time to make use of [it]

at trial.’” Commonwealth v. Tuma, 285 Va. 629, 635 (2013) (alterations in original) (quoting

Read v. Va. State Bar, 233 Va. 560, 564-65 (1987)). “It is the defendant’s ability to utilize the

evidence at trial, and not the timing of the disclosure, that is determinative of prejudice.”

Moreno v. Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 408, 417 (1990). There is no prejudice when the

Commonwealth discloses the evidence as soon as it receives it or when evidence is disclosed “in

time to be put to use.” Bennett v. Commonwealth, 236 Va. 448, 467 (1988). And “a defendant

who ‘failed to move for a continuance or even for a recess in order to consider the material’

untimely disclosed by the prosecution w[ill] not ‘be heard to complain that he had insufficient

time to prepare for trial.’” Tuma, 285 Va. at 637 (quoting Frye v. Commonwealth, 231 Va. 370,

384 (1986)).

       Applying those standards, we find no abuse of discretion here. Roberts conceded that the

prosecutor disclosed the recording of the 911 call as soon as she had it, and Roberts already had

       3
         This Court need not “reach the issue of materiality” under Brady “unless we first
determine that the evidence was not available” to Roberts. Porter v. Warden of the Sussex I
State Prison, 283 Va. 326, 332 (2012).
                                               -9-
a written summary. Roberts argues that he did not have “the exact words” that wife used or the

location data that came with the recording. But Roberts had the recording before trial, “in time

[for it] to be put to use.” Bennett, 236 Va. at 467. What is more, he “did not request either a

postponement or a continuance.” Tuma, 285 Va. at 637 (quoting Davis v. Commonwealth, 230

Va. 201, 204 (1985)). Indeed, he turned down the offer of a continuance, insisting without sound

basis that the 911 call should be excluded altogether. Thus, the trial court acted well within its

discretion to deny that request and admit the recording.

                 C. The sufficiency of the evidence (Assignments of Error III-V)

       Roberts challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to strike the charges for

attempted murder, robbery, and abduction. We must “uphold the judgment of the trial court

unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.” Moore v. Commonwealth, 59

Va. App. 795, 804 n.4 (2012). As noted at the outset, we take the facts in the light most

favorable to the Commonwealth and resolve all reasonable inferences in the Commonwealth’s

favor as well. Cady, 300 Va. at 329; Hammer, 74 Va. App. at 231. “The relevant issue on

appeal is, ‘upon review of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether

any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a

reasonable doubt.’” Lambert v. Commonwealth, 298 Va. 510, 515 (2020) (quoting Pijor v.

Commonwealth, 294 Va. 502, 512 (2017)).

                                         Attempted murder

       A conviction for attempted murder requires proof that the defendant possessed the

specific intent to kill the victim and took an overt act toward doing so. Secret v. Commonwealth,

296 Va. 204, 228 (2018). “Whether the intent required for attempted murder exists ‘is generally

a question for the trier of fact.’” Id. (quoting Nobles v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 548, 551

(1977)). “It is permissible for the fact finder to infer that every person intends the natural,

                                                - 10 -
probable consequences of his . . . actions.” Ellis v. Commonwealth, 281 Va. 499, 507 (2011).

“[A]n overt act is any ‘act apparently adopted to produce the result intended’ so long as that act

is not ‘mere preparation.’” Commonwealth v. Herring, 288 Va. 59, 78 (2014) (quoting Martin v.

Commonwealth, 195 Va. 1107, 1110-11 (1954)).

        There was ample evidence here from which the jury could conclude that Roberts intended

to kill his mother-in-law. He stormed into her bedroom with a knife in his hand and said, “this is

your day to die.” Roberts then disengaged her wheelchair and moved her into the living room,

where he called wife and repeated his threats to kill mother. Roberts held his knife between

mother’s toes, threatening to dismember her from the toes on up. When the police arrived,

Roberts threatened that he would “cut her throat” if they came in. He even sliced off some of

mother’s skin from her neck. A reasonable trier of fact could conclude from that evidence that

Roberts had the specific intent to kill his mother-in-law and that he made an overt act toward that

goal.

                                              Robbery

        Robbery is a common law crime against the person. It means “the taking, with intent to

steal, of the personal property of another, from his person or in his presence, against his will, by

violence or intimidation.” Pierce v. Commonwealth, 205 Va. 528, 532 (1964). The intent to

steal is the intent to permanently deprive the owner of property. Id. at 533. “The fact finder

‘may infer the felonious intent from the immediate asportation and conversion of the property, in

the absence of satisfactory countervailing evidence . . . .’” Clay v. Commonwealth, 30 Va. App.

254, 261 (1999) (en banc) (quoting Pierce, 205 Va. at 533). “Intent may, and most often must,

be proven by circumstantial evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from proven

facts are within the province of the trier of fact.” Fleming v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 349,

353 (1991).

                                                - 11 -
       Viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the evidence showed that

Roberts intended to steal mother’s phone. She testified that when Roberts burst into her

bedroom, he immediately grabbed her phone and moved it out of her reach. He then moved her

to the living room, where he used her phone to call wife while repeatedly threatening to kill

mother. As evidence that he did not intend to steal mother’s phone, Roberts notes that he took it

a few days earlier to call wife before returning it. But that does not prove that he lacked the

intent to steal the phone on the day of the offense. “The mere possibility that the accused might

have had another purpose than that found by the fact finder is insufficient to reverse a conviction

on appeal.” Hancock v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 774, 782-83 (1991). The jury could infer

from the Commonwealth’s evidence, including Roberts’s repeated threats to kill mother, that he

intended to permanently deprive her of the phone.

       We also reject Roberts’s argument that he could not “steal” the phone because he had a

“bona fide claim of right to” to possess it. Roberts asserts that he had paid for the phone. But

taken in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the evidence belied that claim. Wife

testified without contradiction that she had given the phone to mother and did not intend to take

it back. Wife added that she and Roberts jointly paid the phone bill. The jury could properly

find that wife gifted the phone to mother and that Roberts did not have a claim of right to possess

it. So the trial court was not “plainly wrong” to deny his motion to strike the evidence

supporting the robbery charge.

                                             Abduction

       A defendant is guilty of abduction when he “detains his victim by keeping [her] in a

specific place ‘through the use of force, intimidation, or deception.’” Brown v. Commonwealth,

74 Va. App. 721, 731 (2022) (quoting Herring, 288 Va. at 74). The defendant must have the

                                               - 12 -
specific intent to deprive the victim of liberty. Id. An abduction occurs even if the victim is

detained for only “the briefest of moments.” Id. at 733.

          The record contains ample evidence from which the jury could find that Roberts detained

his mother-in-law with the specific intent to take away her liberty. When he burst into her

bedroom, Roberts disengaged the controls on mother’s motorized wheelchair, preventing her

from controlling it on her own. Roberts then wheeled mother into the living room against her

will and locked the wheelchair in place, all the while threatening to kill her. And when the

police arrived, Roberts moved mother into the kitchen, holding the knife to her throat and

grabbing her hair. The jury could thus conclude that Roberts detained his mother-in-law “in a

specific place ‘through the use of force [or] intimidation.’” Id. at 731 (quoting Herring, 288 Va.

at 74).

                                            CONCLUSION

          We find no basis to disturb the judgment.

                                                                                          Affirmed.

                                                - 13 -