From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bridges v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Virginia. Norfolk
Jun 22, 1993
Record No. 0024-92-1 (Va. Ct. App. Jun. 22, 1993)

Opinion

Record No. 0024-92-1

June 22, 1993

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF HAMPTON JOHN D. GRAY, JUDGE.

Lawrence A. Martin for appellant.

Michael T. Judge, Assistant Attorney General (Mary Sue Terry, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Present: Judges Baker, Barrow and Benton.

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.


Anthony James Bridges (appellant) appeals from his bench trial conviction by the Circuit Court of the City of Hampton (trial court) for malicious wounding in violation of Code § 18.2-51. The sole issue for our consideration is whether the trial court erred in finding that appellant maliciously wounded Beatrice Dale (victim) with the intent to maim, disfigure, disable or kill.

Upon familiar principles, we view the evidence "in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom." Evans v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. 609, 612, 212 S.E.2d 268, 271 (1975). Stated in that light, the record discloses that on July 19, 1991, the victim was working at a 7-Eleven convenience store in Hampton. She observed that appellant was wearing a jacket, although it was July and it was hot outside, as he browsed through the store. Several times she asked appellant if she could be of assistance to him, to which he responded negatively. Thereafter, she noticed a package of cookies sticking out of his jacket pocket and that he had walked past the cash register toward the door. The victim informed appellant that he was not allowed to put the cookies in his pocket. Appellant gave the cookies to the victim, who put them on the counter and asked appellant to leave the store. Appellant responded by pushing her, whereupon another store clerk told appellant that she was going to call the police. Upon hearing that statement, appellant violently struck the victim in the nose with his fist, fracturing her nose and breaking her glasses. Her nose bled for ten to fifteen minutes. The victim testified that she went to a nose specialist for treatment and that she continued to have trouble with her sinuses, dizziness and headaches.

Police Officer Kenneth Randall Seals testified that he apprehended appellant and advised him of his rights. Seals asked appellant why he stole the cookies and appellant told him that he was going to eat them. Seals then asked him, "Why did you hit the elderly lady in the face?" Appellant responded, "Because she grabbed my harm [sic], so I back handed her." Seals next asked, "Why didn't you just leave the store when she asked you to leave?" He answered, "Because that's just how I handle things and that's just the way I am."

Code § 18.2-51 provides:

If any person maliciously shoot, stab, cut, or wound any person or by any means cause him bodily injury, with the intent to maim, disfigure, disable, or kill, he shall, except where it is otherwise provided, be guilty of a Class 3 felony. If such act be done unlawfully but not maliciously, with the intent aforesaid, the offender shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.

Malice may be "implied by law from any willful, deliberate and cruel act against another, however sudden." Fletcher v. Commonwealth, 209 Va. 636, 640, 166 S.E.2d 269, 273 (1969). Whether malice existed is a question for the trier of fact.Smith v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 696, 700-01, 261 S.E.2d 550, 553 (1980).

In Bryant v. Commonwealth, 189 Va. 310, 53 S.E.2d 54 (1949), the Supreme Court said:

The test of the offense of maliciously or unlawfully causing bodily injury is the intent with which the result is accomplished rather than the nature of the means, where the means are specified and established. Thus, one may permanently maim, disfigure, disable, or kill with the fists, or knees, if the force is applied with violence and brutality.

Id. at 317, 53 S.E.2d at 57 (citation omitted); see also Williams v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 393, 397, 412 S.E.2d 202, 204 (1991).

Appellant concedes that there may be cases that permit a conviction for malicious wounding where the only blow struck was with a fist; however, he argues that here the Commonwealth failed to prove specifically that he intended to maim, disfigure, disable or kill the victim.

The intent is the purpose formed in a man's mind, and is usually proved by his conduct, sometimes by his statements; the necessary intent constituting one element in an attempt is the intent in fact, as distinguished from an intent in law. From the act alleged, the law infers a general evil intent, on the principle that a man intends the probable and necessary consequences of his act.

Shackelford v. Commonwealth, 183 Va. 423, 426, 32 S.E.2d 682, 684 (1945) (citation omitted). The injury sustained by the victim was inflicted solely by Shackelford's use of his fist. In the case before us, the fact that appellant caused the bodily injury by a single blow with his fist does not necessarily mean that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Here, appellant applied such force to the victim's nose with his fist that her nose was fractured and bled for ten to fifteen minutes. He also broke her glasses and, as of the trial date, she was still suffering from dizziness, headaches and sinus problems as a result of the blow. "'[A]n assault with the bare fist may be attended with such circumstances of violence and brutality that an intent to kill will be presumed.'"Williams, 13 Va. App. at 395, 412 S.E.2d at 203 (quotingRoark v. Commonwealth, 182 Va. 244, 250, 28 S.E.2d 693, 695-96 (1944)). Evidence of the brutality of the injury sustained, coupled with appellant's statements to the police officer, was sufficient to support appellant's "intent to maim, disfigure, disable or kill."

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Bridges v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Virginia. Norfolk
Jun 22, 1993
Record No. 0024-92-1 (Va. Ct. App. Jun. 22, 1993)
Case details for

Bridges v. Commonwealth

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY JAMES BRIDGES v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

Court:Court of Appeals of Virginia. Norfolk

Date published: Jun 22, 1993

Citations

Record No. 0024-92-1 (Va. Ct. App. Jun. 22, 1993)