From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kvarnstrom v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Virginia. Argued at Salem, Virginia
Jun 28, 1994
Record No. 0608-93-3 (Va. Ct. App. Jun. 28, 1994)

Opinion

Record No. 0608-93-3

Decided: June 28, 1994

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF DANVILLE, James F. Ingram, Judge

Affirmed.

Lawrence D. Gott (Office of the Public Defender, on brief), for appellant.

Linwood T. Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General (Stephen D. Rosenthal, Attorney General; Virginia B. Theisen, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Present: Judges Barrow, Coleman and Koontz


MEMORANDUM OPINION

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


Carl Shane Kvarnstrom was charged with malicious wounding. In a jury trial, he was convicted of unlawful wounding. We hold that the trial court did not err by permitting a neurosurgeon to testify to the details of the surgical procedure he performed on the victim in order to explain the nature and severity of the victim's wounds. We also hold that the trial court did not err by permitting the neurosurgeon to testify about the amount of force needed to have caused the victim's injuries.

Jody Lee Collins, the victim, the defendant, and a third party became embroiled in an argument about whether Kvarnstrom had attempted to strike Collins's dog. Later, while Collins and another party were arguing, Kvarnstrom struck Collins in the head with an aluminum baseball bat. Collins was taken to the hospital, where he was placed under the care of Dr. Ramon Erasmo. A brain scan on Collins revealed a blood clot. Dr. Erasmo performed a craniotomy to remove the clot.

At trial, Dr. Erasmo testified about the extent of Collins's brain injuries. He testified to the surgical procedure he performed on Collins in order to treat the injuries. Dr. Erasmo went into some detail about the steps taken in the procedure. He also testified that although he could not calculate the exact amount of force necessary to have caused Collins's injury, he could conclude that the force used "must be strong."

I. RELEVANCE OF THE SURGERY

"Evidence is relevant if it has any logical tendency, however slight, to establish a fact at issue in the case." Ragland v. Commonwealth, ___ Va. App. ___ ___, 434 S.E.2d 675, 678 (1993). To establish malicious wounding, the charged offense, the Commonwealth was required to prove that Kvarnstrom had the intent to maim, disfigure, disable, or kill Jody Collins when he caused Collins bodily injury. See Code Sec. 18.2-51.2. Therefore, "[t]he critical issue is . . . the intent with which the injuries were inflicted. . . . The nature and extent of the bodily injury and the means by which accomplished may reflect this intent." Campbell v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 476, 483, 405 S.E.2d 1, 4 (1991) (en banc).

Dr. Erasmo testified to the nature and extent of Collins's injuries. Dr. Erasmo's testimony concerning the surgery explained how he was able to observe the injuries and was inextricably related to his testimony describing the nature and extent of the victim's head injury. As such, Dr. Erasmo's testimony regarding the injuries and surgery was relevant to prove Kvarnstrom's state of mind and his intent when he struck Collins with the baseball bat.

The probative value of Dr. Erasmo's testimony to prove intent outweighed any prejudicial effect that describing the surgery might have had on the jury. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion by admitting the evidence. Coe v. Commonwealth, 231 Va. 83, 87, 340 S.E.2d 820, 823 (1986).

II. OPINION EVIDENCE CONCERNING AMOUNT OF FORCE NECESSARY TO CAUSE BRAIN INJURY

Dr. Erasmo was qualified as an expert in neurosurgery. Based on his education, experience, and training, he had treated many traumatic closed head injuries. As such, he was qualified to render an opinion as to the amount of force that would have been necessary to have caused the type of brain injury suffered by the victim. See Hubbard v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 250, 255, 403 S.E.2d 708, 710 (1991), aff'd, 243 Va. 1, 413 S.E.2d 875 (1992). The force used was relevant to prove the defendant's intent. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing Dr. Erasmo to testify regarding the requisite force needed to cause Collins's injuries. Id. Accordingly, the defendant's conviction is affirmed.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Kvarnstrom v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Virginia. Argued at Salem, Virginia
Jun 28, 1994
Record No. 0608-93-3 (Va. Ct. App. Jun. 28, 1994)
Case details for

Kvarnstrom v. Commonwealth

Case Details

Full title:CARL SHANE KVARNSTROM v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

Court:Court of Appeals of Virginia. Argued at Salem, Virginia

Date published: Jun 28, 1994

Citations

Record No. 0608-93-3 (Va. Ct. App. Jun. 28, 1994)