Robert Ian Trainer v. Commonwealth ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                                 COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
    Present: Judges Benton, Haley and Senior Judge Annunziata
    Argued at Alexandria, Virginia
    ROBERT IAN TRAINER
    MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
    v.      Record No. 1170-04-4                                    JUDGE JAMES W. BENTON, JR.
    MAY 31, 2005
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
    FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY
    Stanley P. Klein, Judge
    Laura E. Byrum, Assistant Public Defender (Office of the Public
    Defender, on briefs), for appellant.
    Stephen R. McCullough, Assistant Attorney General (Jerry W.
    Kilgore, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
    The sole issue on appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to prove assault. We hold
    that it was and affirm the conviction.
    I.
    Jeannie E. Colleton was driving her two children, ages eight and two, to a daycare center,
    when her attention was drawn to a car that swerved into her lane. The car, driven by Robert Ian
    Trainer, was traveling in the same direction as Colleton’s car, and it was in front of her in the left
    lane. The rear of his car was about one foot in front of Colleton’s car when it swerved into her lane.
    Colleton noticed that Trainer was looking back at her car. As the two cars continued along the
    roadway, Trainer’s car lagged behind her and began abruptly changing lanes. Colleton testified that
    she began to become “concerned and . . . curious as to why [he] was so concerned with [her].”
    *
    Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
    When Colleton reached the traffic light at an intersection, Trainer drove next to her car.
    Colleton looked at Trainer and detected through her partially opened window that he was speaking.
    Colleton testified that Trainer’s passenger door was three feet from her door and that Trainer was
    leaning toward her with his hands resting on his passenger seat as he spoke. She testified that the
    following occurred:
    So I rolled the window down and I looked over. . . . [H]e said,
    “that’s dirty.” And I’m, “Okay.” And he said it two or three
    times. He said, “You have nigger kids in the car. You’re a nigger
    loving whore with nigger kids in the car.” And I said, “Okay. I’m
    sorry that you feel that way.” And he just went on about how dirty
    I was, and the nigger kids in the car, and I’m a nigger lover. . . .
    [T]here was a gentleman turning left, and I’m trying to look around
    me, because, I mean, I was nervous. And there’s this guy
    screaming at me. . . .
    *       *       *       *       *       *       *
    He was, you know, his verbal content was . . . he was being
    aggressive. So when I looked over I saw a gentleman pulling, you
    know the light was turning, the left turning lane was turning red.
    And I said, “Look, if you have a problem, why don’t you talk to
    their father about it?” And he leans forward, and he says, “Look,
    bitch, I just got out of prison for killing niggers, and I’ll kill those
    niggers with my bare hands.”
    Colleton testified that Trainer’s voice was loud and that she “was in fear.” She also testified that
    her eight-year-old daughter reacted to Trainer’s remarks. Colleton then closed her window.
    When the light changed, Trainer drove slowly through the intersection. Colleton then
    noted his license number, and she accelerated. Trainer continued to follow her. Colleton
    testified she “pulled over . . . because [Trainer] was still behind [her]” and she did not want him
    to follow her to the daycare center. When Colleton stopped at the side of the road, Trainer drove
    past “while looking at [her] just shaking his head.” Colleton testified that the distance between
    the point where she stopped and the place Trainer first swerved into her lane was three to four
    miles.
    -2-
    At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial judge convicted Trainer of the misdemeanor
    of assault. Code § 18.2-57.
    II.
    Trainer contends the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction because (i) he
    “did not commit an overt act or attempt,” (ii) he “lacked the present ability, apparent or
    otherwise, to effectuate a battery,” and (iii) Colleton “did not possess a reasonable apprehension
    of imminent bodily harm.” Relying on Carter v. Commonwealth, 
    269 Va. 44
    , 
    606 S.E.2d 839
    (2005), the Commonwealth responds that Trainer’s conduct satisfied the elements of assault. We
    agree with the Commonwealth’s understanding of the necessary elements.
    In Carter, the Supreme Court reviewed the history of its decisions concerning assault and
    held as follows:
    Based on a review of our prior cases, we conclude that, like the
    majority of jurisdictions, our prior cases compel the conclusion
    that a common law assault, whether a crime or tort, occurs when an
    assailant engages in an overt act intended to inflict bodily harm
    and has the present ability to inflict such harm or engages in an
    overt act intended to place the victim in fear or apprehension of
    bodily harm and creates such reasonable fear or apprehension in
    the victim.
    
    269 Va. at 47
    , 
    606 S.E.2d at 841
    . The Court further noted that its early decisions eliminated the
    need to establish present ability to harm:
    The elements of common law assault as described in these cases
    reflect the adoption of the principle that the actual present ability to
    harm was not a prerequisite for conviction. Apparent ability or,
    put another way, well-founded fear or apprehension of harm,
    combined with an intent to instill that fear, was sufficient to
    support a conviction for common law assault. The understanding
    reflected the general trend of combining the elements of common
    law criminal assault and common law tort assault to form the
    definition of common law assault.
    
    Id. at 48
    , 
    606 S.E.2d at 842
    .
    -3-
    Applying these principles to this case, we conclude that the trial judge’s findings
    completely address the elements of the offense. The trial judge found that the evidence proved
    “a situation of words plus some degree of conduct,” which was sufficient “to prove beyond a
    reasonable doubt that [Trainer] intended to produce a fear of an imminent assault.” The judge
    found that Colleton believed Trainer “was stalking her . . . with his car,” that the evidence proved
    Trainer was “stalking [her] by car,” and that “what [Trainer said] is not only offensive, but it is
    absolutely threatening.” The judge also found that Trainer “intended to put . . . fear . . . into . . .
    Colleton and that he was successful in doing it.”
    These findings are supported by Colleton’s testimony. Her testimony was sufficient to
    prove Trainer drove his car in a manner that would cause a reasonable person to believe he
    intended to cause harm. Trainer’s driving conduct when combined with his verbal threats were
    more than sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he intended to instill fear. Indeed,
    Colleton testified that Trainer’s conduct had the intended effect of causing her to fear harm from
    him.
    Discussing its decision in Burgess v. Commonwealth, 
    136 Va. 697
    , 708, 
    118 S.E. 273
    ,
    276 (1923), the Supreme Court held in Carter that the definition of assault “does not require the
    present ability to inflict harm when, as here, an assailant acts in a manner intended to put the
    victim in reasonable fear or apprehension and causes the victim such reasonable fear or
    apprehension.” Carter, 
    269 Va. at 49
    , 
    606 S.E.2d at 842
    . As LaFave explains, assault can also
    be committed “when one, with the intent to cause a reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily
    harm (though not to inflict such harm), does some act which causes such apprehension. For this
    type of assault, a present ability to inflict is clearly unnecessary.” Wayne R. LaFave, Criminal
    Law § 16.3(b), at 825 (4th ed. 2003) (footnotes omitted). This type of criminal assault “needs, in
    addition to (1) the intent-to-scare element and (2) the apprehension result element, (3) the further
    -4-
    requirement of some conduct by the defendant, conduct of the sort to arouse a reasonable
    apprehension of bodily harm.” Id. at 826.
    The record supports the trial judge’s findings that Trainer engaged in conduct, not just
    verbal events, that Trainer intended to cause fear and that Colleton reasonably feared harm from
    Trainer’s conduct. We hold, therefore, the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable
    doubt the elements of assault. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction.
    Affirmed.
    -5-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1170044

Filed Date: 5/31/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014