Court Opinion

ID: 9377312
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-07 16:10:16.289343+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:13.294442
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

              Present: Judges Chaney, Raphael and Callins
UNPUBLISHED

              Argued by videoconference

              DESHON SCOTT
                                                                              MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
              v.      Record No. 0183-22-2                                    JUDGE VERNIDA R. CHANEY
                                                                                   MARCH 7, 2023
              COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

                                FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF PETERSBURG
                                             Dennis M. Martin, Sr., Judge

                                Jacquelyn F. Gerlach (Friedman Law Firm, P.C., on brief), for
                                appellant.

                                Lucille M. Wall, Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares,
                                Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

                      Deshon Scott (Scott) appeals his conviction for aggravated malicious wounding in violation

              of Code § 18.2-51.2. Following a bench trial in the Circuit Court of the City of Petersburg (trial

              court) Scott was convicted and sentenced to incarceration for twenty years, with four years and four

              months suspended. Scott contends on appeal that the trial court erred in convicting him because the

              evidence was insufficient to establish that he acted maliciously with the specific intent to maim,

              disfigure, disable or kill. This Court holds that the evidence is sufficient to sustain Scott’s

              conviction.

                                                         BACKGROUND

                      “In accordance with familiar principles of appellate review, the facts will be stated in the

              light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party” in the trial court. McGowan v.

              Commonwealth, 72 Va. App. 513, 516 (2020) (quoting Gerald v. Commonwealth, 295 Va. 469, 472

                      *
                          Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
(2018)). We “regard as true all credible evidence favorable to the Commonwealth and all

inferences that may reasonably be drawn from that evidence.” Id. (citing Gerald, 295 Va. at 473).

        In November 2019, Scott was the tenant of 71-year-old O.H.,1 with whom Scott shared an

apartment in Petersburg. On November 22, Scott assaulted O.H. while O.H. was in the kitchen

preparing to make breakfast. After O.H. asked Scott if he had seen the oatmeal, Scott suddenly

attacked him. Scott struck O.H. in the head several times with an unidentified object, knocked him

down, and forcefully kicked him in the back. Subsequently, O.H. was transported to the hospital in

an ambulance. Later that day, Scott turned himself in to the police.

        O.H. suffered a rapid deterioration in mental status and lost consciousness. O.H. was

admitted to the hospital’s intensive care unit with multiple injuries, including severe brain

hemorrhaging, brain contusion, and multiple skull and facial fractures.2 O.H.’s doctor reported that

his traumatic brain injury was “a devastating injury with [a] high chance of mortality.”

Neurosurgery saved O.H.’s life. Trauma surgery was performed to repair O.H.’s scalp laceration,

but his doctors deemed O.H.’s facial fractures to be non-operable.

        As a result of Scott’s attack on O.H., O.H. has multiple scars on his head. Ever since the

attack, O.H. has also suffered memory problems, impaired balance, and impaired mobility that he

didn’t experience before.

        Scott testified that on November 22, he informed O.H. that he was moving out and O.H.

responded by “cussing [him] out” and calling him names. Scott testified that O.H. was drunk and

        1
            For the sake of the victim’s privacy, he is identified by his initials throughout this opinion.
        2
          Contrary to the Commonwealth’s assertions in the trial court and on appeal, there is no
evidence that O.H.’s ribs were fractured in the assault. According to O.H.’s medical records, he
had a “mildly displaced fracture” to one of his ribs in November 2020, nearly a year after the
assault. O.H.’s medical records contain no reference to any rib fracture before November 2020,
and there is no testimony or other evidence regarding rib fractures. Thus, the trial court’s finding
that O.H. suffered “multiple rib fractures” is not supported by the evidence. Notwithstanding
this error, this Court finds the evidence sufficient to support the trial court’s verdict.
                                                  -2-
exposing his genitals. Scott further testified that O.H. came toward him holding a wine bottle, so he

elbowed O.H. once in the head. Then O.H. fell and collapsed on the ground and, according to Scott,

he helped O.H. back up. Scott denied kicking O.H. and denied hitting him with any weapon. On

cross-examination, Scott testified that O.H. hit his head on the door when he fell to the ground and

that he fell a second time after Scott helped him up. Scott also testified on cross-examination that

O.H. was holding both a wine bottle and a golf club and that O.H. hit him in the head with the golf

club. On re-direct examination, Scott testified that the one time he hit O.H. was after O.H. asked “to

see [his] private part.”

        The trial court found the evidence insufficient to support a claim of self-defense because

there is no evidence that Scott was placed in any reasonable apprehension of harm or danger. The

trial court found that Scott’s testimony was “just everywhere,” noting that “[t]he court is concerned

that he’s got mental health issues that may be affecting his ability to tell his story.”3 The trial court

found that Scott’s “story doesn’t add up” and expressly found O.H.’s version of events to be more

credible than Scott’s version. Given this credibility determination and the trial court’s consideration

of O.H.’s medical records, the trial court found Scott guilty as charged of aggravated malicious

wounding.

                                              ANALYSIS

        “On review of the sufficiency of the evidence, ‘the judgment of the trial court is

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

support it.’” Ingram v. Commonwealth, 74 Va. App. 59, 76 (2021) (quoting Smith v.

Commonwealth, 296 Va. 450, 460 (2018)). The issue on appeal “is whether ‘any rational trier of

        3
         Under Code § 19.2-271.6, which became effective July 1, 2021, a defendant may present
evidence regarding a mental condition that existed at the time of the alleged offense—including
expert testimony—that “tends to show the defendant did not have the intent required for the offense
charged.” Code § 19.2-271.6(B).
                                             -3-
fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Id.

(quoting Yoder v. Commonwealth, 298 Va. 180, 182 (2019)). “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.’” Chavez v.

Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 149, 161 (2018) (quoting Banks v. Commonwealth, 67 Va. App.

273, 288 (2017)). This Court also defers to the trial court’s credibility determinations unless the

witness’s testimony is “inherently incredible, or so contrary to human experience as to render it

unworthy of belief.” Kelley v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 617, 626 (2019) (quoting Johnson v.

Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 303, 315 (2011)). “Determining the credibility of witnesses . . . is

within the exclusive province of the [fact-finder], which has the unique opportunity to observe

the demeanor of the witnesses as they testify.” Lea v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 300, 304

(1993).

          Scott contends on appeal that the evidence is insufficient to prove that he acted with the

requisite intent to commit aggravated malicious wounding. Code § 18.2-51.2 provides:

                 If any person maliciously shoots, stabs, cuts or wounds any other
                 person, or by any means causes bodily injury, with the intent to
                 maim, disfigure, disable or kill, he shall be guilty of a Class 2
                 felony if the victim is thereby severely injured and is caused to
                 suffer permanent and significant physical impairment.

Code § 18.2-51.2(A). Scott argues that the evidence is insufficient to prove that he acted

maliciously and had the specific intent to maim, disfigure, disable or kill O.H. We disagree.

          “Malice inheres in the doing of a wrongful act intentionally, or without just cause or

excuse, or as a result of ill will. It may be directly evidenced by words, or inferred from acts and

conduct which necessarily result in injury.” Robertson v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 814, 823

(2000) (quoting Hernandez v. Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 626, 631 (1993)). “Malice is

evidenced either when the accused acted with a sedate, deliberate mind, and formed design, or

                                                  -4-
committed a purposeful and cruel act without any or without great provocation.” Id. (quoting

Branch v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 836, 841 (1992)). “Whether malice existed is a question

for the fact finder.” Id.

        The evidence supports the trial court’s finding that Scott acted maliciously in assaulting

O.H. The trial court credited O.H.’s version of events and rejected Scott’s version. Because

O.H.’s testimony was not inherently incredible, this Court defers to the trial court’s credibility

determination. O.H.’s testimony established that without provocation, Scott hit him in the head

several times, knocked him down, and forcefully kicked him in the back after he collapsed on the

ground. As the trial court found, Scott did not act in self-defense. Thus, a rational fact-finder

could find that malice was evidenced by Scott’s commission of a wrongful, purposeful, and cruel

attack on O.H. without provocation, justification, or excuse. See id. A rational fact-finder could

also find that Scott’s forceful blows to O.H.’s head would necessarily result in injury, and could

infer therefrom that Scott assaulted O.H. with malice. See id.

        The evidence also supports the trial court’s finding that Scott assaulted O.H. with the

specific intent to maim, disfigure, disable or kill. According to O.H.’s medical records, O.H.

“was struck multiple times in the head with an unknown object.” The medical records also show

that these blows to the head were so forceful that they caused O.H. to suffer near-fatal traumatic

brain injury, multiple skull fractures, and inoperable facial fractures. From the evidence that

Scott’s blows were “applied to vital and delicate parts of the body of a defenseless, unresisting

man,” a rational fact-finder could infer that Scott intended to permanently injure or kill O.H. See

Roark v. Commonwealth, 182 Va. 244, 250 (1944) (recognizing that the intent to kill may be

inferred from a defendant’s use of his fists to strike a victim’s delicate, vital body part); see also

Burkeen v. Commonwealth, 286 Va. 257, 261 (2013) (holding that the trial court could infer the

intent to maim from evidence showing that the defendant hit the victim once in the face with his

                                                 -5-
bare fist, causing serious and disfiguring injury); Johnson v. Commonwealth, 53 Va. App. 79,

105 (2008) (holding that a rational fact-finder could “discern an intent to permanently injure”

where defendant punched the victim in the head without provocation, resulting in a concussion

and cuts requiring stitches).

                                         CONCLUSION

       The evidence is sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that Scott acted with the

requisite intent for aggravated malicious wounding. Therefore, this Court affirms Scott’s

conviction.

                                                                                           Affirmed.

                                                -6-