Harry Stephen Caprio v. Commonwealth of Virginia ( 2000 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Willis, Lemons and Frank
Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia
HARRY STEPHEN CAPRIO
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 2225-98-1 JUDGE DONALD W. LEMONS
MARCH 14, 2000
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH
Johnny E. Morrison, Judge
Dianne G. Ringer, Senior Assistant Public
Defender, for appellant.
Marla Graff Decker, Assistant Attorney
General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General;
Stephen R. McCullough, Assistant Attorney
General, on brief), for appellee.
Harry Stephen Caprio appeals his conviction for second
degree murder. On appeal, he argues that: (1) the trial court
abused its discretion by denying his motion for a mistrial based
on the court's failure to strike a juror for cause, (2) that the
rebuttal argument of the Commonwealth's Attorney was improper
and should have been grounds for a mistrial or a cautionary
instruction, and (3) that the evidence was insufficient to
sustain the conviction. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code
§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.
I. BACKGROUND
On August 5, 1991, Elizabeth Marie Bickley lived in a house
in Portsmouth with her tenant, Mike Webb. Webb was moving out,
and Tanya Ayers was moving her possessions into the residence.
Bickley's mother went to the house that morning and noticed that
Bickley limped from a bruised hip and had a black eye. 1 There
was a message on Bickley's answering machine from Caprio saying
that he was "off today" and would "be over this afternoon."
Bickley and Caprio had been friends since childhood. That night
Webb and Ayers observed Caprio and Bickley leave together at
eight o'clock to buy beer.
Bickley's body was found at eleven o'clock on August 5,
1991, in the middle of a road in Portsmouth, a short distance
from her home. The cause of death was strangulation, both
manual and with a plastic wire tie. Bickley also had received
extensive blows from a blunt object. Electrical ties, similar
to the one found on Bickley, were found in a nearby baseball
field.
At trial, Caprio testified that while they were driving,
Bickley became "upset" because he refused to assist her in
evicting Webb and she decided to walk home alone. Caprio
claimed that after he let Bickley out of his truck, he circled
the block and when he returned, Bickley was gone. Friends of
1
Neither the bruised hip nor the black eye were caused by
Caprio.
- 2 -
Caprio testified that he came over to their house at about 9:00
or 10:30 that evening. At approximately 3:30 on the morning of
August 6, Caprio returned home and woke his roommate Steven
Edwards. He told Edwards that he and Bickley had a dispute,
that she got out of the truck and that he spent the remainder of
the evening with friends.
At trial, Webb testified that he had not seen Bickley alive
since she left with Caprio the night before. Tanya Ayers
testified that Bickley was afraid to go out at night because her
previous boyfriend, who had just gotten out of jail, had
threatened her.
Caprio was a general contractor and kept plastic wire ties
in his garage and kept smaller ties in his truck. Jeffrey Ban
of the Virginia Division of Forensic Science, testified that
blood consistent with Bickley's DNA was found on the shorts that
Caprio wore the night of the murder. 2 Dr. Bush of the Medical
Examiner's Office, testified that Bickley died sometime between
8:30 p.m. and 12:30 a.m. on the night of August 5th or in the
early morning hours of August 6th.
Caprio was indicted for second degree murder. He pled not
guilty and was tried by a jury in the Circuit Court of the City
2
The Commonwealth admitted into evidence Ban's report which
stated that the probability of finding another person "is
approximately one in 4.1 million in the Caucasian Population, 1
in 85 million in the Black Population, 1 in 10 million in the
Hispanic Population." Bickley was Caucasian.
- 3 -
of Portsmouth. During voir dire, the trial court asked the
prospective jurors whether "we have anybody on the panel that
may be familiar with, been associated with, or know[s] anything
about or may have been represented by [this Commonwealth's
Attorney] or anybody in the Commonwealth's Attorney's office?"
No venireperson responded. After the struck jurors were excused
and the jury of twelve had been sworn, the Commonwealth's
Attorney advised the court that he had just realized that he
went to high school with one of the jurors. That juror was then
questioned out of the presence of the other jurors about his
relationship with the prosecutor. The following exchange
occurred:
THE COURT: . . . . Do you know any of the
lawyers involved in this case?
JUROR: I know the Commonwealth's Attorney.
THE COURT: You know [the Commonwealth's
Attorney]?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: How is it you know him?
JUROR: We played football in school.
* * * * * * *
THE COURT: What year did you graduate?
JUROR: '68.
THE COURT: '68; and since you all
graduated, have you all socialized together,
are close friends?
- 4 -
JUROR: I've seen him in the community, but
we don't socialize per se.
THE COURT: The fact that you all played
football together, went to the same high
school, notwithstanding that fact, can you
be fair and impartial to this trial, sir?
JUROR: Oh, yeah.
THE COURT: You can?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Do you have any questions,
[defense counsel]?
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Yes, sir. [Juror], the
fact that you know [the Commonwealth's
Attorney], would that give more credence,
less credence, or no credence to what he
said? In other words, would you believe him
if he said something versus other people?
JUROR: I believe a man at his word, his
word is truth; and I believe what a person
says, if it's the truth, then it will tell.
In other words, I don't believe a person
because he's a friend or I know you.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: And the fact that, as
the Judge will tell you, the jury is to
consider only the evidence that comes from
the stand. The lawyers' statements are not
evidence. They're just statements. They're
representing their side. The fact that you
played football with [the Commonwealth's
Attorney] would not elevate his words to a
higher standard?
JUROR: No.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: And do you feel in your
heart you can give Mr. Caprio a fair
hearing?
JUROR: Yes.
- 5 -
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Knowing [the
Commonwealth's Attorney]?
JUROR: Yes.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Y'all haven't been
involved in any things as Norcom High School
alumni, football games or anything like
that?
JUROR: No, not lately.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Thank you.
Caprio moved "to have [the juror] taken off." He stated, "I
know [the juror's] answers may satisfy the Court, but for the
record, I would ask that he be taken off. We have,
unfortunately, twelve jurors. We have one who played football
with [the Commonwealth's Attorney]. I would make a motion, I
guess it would be for a mistrial." Defense counsel further
suggested that "knowing someone is not enough, but he is more
connected and did not make any mention that he knew [the
Commonwealth's Attorney] before. I'm not saying he's trying to
hide anything. It may have been the way the question was
worded. I'm just making the motion for a mistrial."
The Commonwealth's Attorney responded that he graduated
from Norcom High School in 1967 and had not socialized with the
juror since graduation. He added, "In fact, I've never really
socialized with him, even when we went to high school . . . .
We're talking thirty years ago."
Defense counsel noted that "the key was, you know, that it
was after the jury was selected that we knew of this. We
- 6 -
brought to the Court's attention before jury selection or during
jury selection that there was a person on the jury that we know
very well. We brought that up at what I thought was the
appropriate time. It's just a little bit late at this point to
do that." The trial court denied the defendant's motion.
The jury found Caprio guilty of second degree murder. No
additional evidence was presented to the jury at the sentencing
phase. In his rebuttal argument, the Commonwealth's Attorney
stated:
Can you imagine what [the victim's] last
words were? Can you imagine what her last
words were? I imagine probably they were,
"Steve, why are you doing this to me?
Steve, why are you doing this to me? What
did I do to deserve this kind of beating,
this kind of death?"
I can't, you can't bring her back. These
folks out here sobbing and crying, they
would trade anything if you could bring her
back. They have no problem walking about,
walking out the door and going about their
business if you could bring her back, but
you can't bring her back; so what is your
responsibility to this community, to this
family, and all these people here?
Defense counsel interjected with, "Judge," and the trial court
immediately responded, "All right; sustained." The
Commonwealth's Attorney continued, "What is your
responsibility?" Again, defense counsel interjected, "Judge, I
would like to be heard at the bench." The trial court told
counsel to "[c]ome on up," and there was a discussion at the
- 7 -
sidebar. The Commonwealth's Attorney completed his argument to
the jury without objection:
Whatever you imagine her last words to be,
whatever you imagine them to be, you can
rest assured there was a plea for her life
and it was a plea to stop the beating, it
was a plea for her last breath, and he
ignored it; so is he due any mercy from you?
I don't think so. He had his chance to be
merciful. It's your chance to meet [sic]
out justice; and if ever a beating and
murder justified the maximum penalty, this
one does. This one does.
The Commonwealth's Attorney ended his argument by asking the
jury to impose the maximum penalty.
Once the jury retired to deliberate, defense counsel asked
the court for permission to put certain previous objections on
the record. The relevant objection relating to the
Commonwealth's Attorney's argument was:
Judge . . . I timely [objected] to [the
Commonwealth's Attorney's] second sentencing
closing when he was talking about
responsibility. At that point, the Court
allowed me to approach the bench. I asked
for a mistrial or a cautionary instruction.
The Court said he would sustain that
objection.
Judge, we would make the motion clear that
we were asking for a cautionary instruction
or a mistrial based upon [the Commonwealth's
Attorney's] comments at any part of the jury
trial were improper and intended to have
prejudicial value; and [the Commonwealth's
Attorney] being the experienced prosecutor
he is, he knows better than that; and Judge,
we're putting the objection on the record
and preserving the objection.
- 8 -
II. PROSPECTIVE JUROR
Caprio first argues that although the prospective juror may
not have been subject to automatic exclusion based on the
relationship with the Commonwealth's Attorney, the failure to
disclose this relationship on voir dire prevented Caprio from
the intelligent exercise of his right to exercise a peremptory
challenge. This argument was not presented to the trial court
with the specificity required by Rule 5A:18 and will not be
considered by us on appeal. See Helms v. Commonwealth, 10 Va.
App. 368, 372, 392 S.E.2d 496, 498 (1990); Hogan v.
Commonwealth, 5 Va. App. 36, 45, 360 S.E.2d 371, 376 (1987).
Caprio's second contention is that the prior relationship
between the Commonwealth's Attorney and the juror coupled with
the juror's failure to respond to the voir dire question
demonstrates the juror's partiality.
Both the United States Constitution and the Virginia
Constitution guarantee Caprio's right to an impartial jury. See
U.S. Const. amend. VI, XIV; Va. Const. art. I, § 8; see also
Code § 8.01-358; Rule 3A:14. The partiality or impartiality of
an individual juror is an issue of fact that is to be determined
by the trial court. See Watkins v. Commonwealth, 229 Va. 469,
480, 331 S.E.2d 422, 431 (1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1099,
106 S. Ct. 1503, 89 L.Ed.2d 903 (1986); Brown v. Commonwealth,
28 Va. App. 315, 327, 504 S.E.2d 399, 405 (1998). Consequently,
the trial court's decision whether to retain or exclude
- 9 -
individual veniremen is given deference on appeal since it is in
a position to see and hear the juror. See Wainwright v. Witt,
469 U.S. 412, 426, 105 S. Ct. 844, 853, 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985);
Eaton v. Commonwealth, 240 Va. 236, 246, 397 S.E.2d 385, 391
(1990); Brown, 28 Va. App. at 327, 504 S.E.2d at 405. When
there is a "mid-trial" challenge to a juror's impartiality, this
Court will reverse the trial court's decision to seat a
prospective juror only for an abuse of discretion. Hunt v.
Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 395, 399, 488 S.E.2d 672, 674 (1997).
Furthermore, we will not overturn "'the denial of a motion for a
mistrial . . . unless there exists a manifest probability that
[the ruling] was prejudicial.'" Taylor v. Commonwealth, 25 Va.
App. 12, 17, 486 S.E.2d 108, 110 (1997) (quoting Bottoms v.
Commonwealth, 22 Va. App. 378, 385, 470 S.E.2d 153, 157 (1996)).
The record indicates that the juror was unaffected by his
prior relationship with the Commonwealth's Attorney.
Furthermore, while under oath, the juror answered non-leading
questions in his own words and repeatedly assured the court of
his ability to remain impartial. See Educational Books, Inc. v.
Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 384, 389, 349 S.E.2d 903, 907 (1986)
("The evidence used to show the requisite qualifications for
impartial jury service must emanate from the juror herself,
unsuggested by leading questions posed to her."); Hunt, 25 Va.
App. at 399, 488 S.E.2d at 674 (trial court properly refused to
remove juror when juror revealed during the trial that she knew
- 10 -
members of the victim's family, but that this would not affect
the juror's ability to provide the defendant with a fair trial).
The passage of over thirty years and the weak nature of the
connection between the juror and the Commonwealth's Attorney
account for both the juror and Commonwealth's Attorney's failure
to immediately recall the other. There was no manifest
probability that Caprio was prejudiced by the court's denial of
his motion for a mistrial.
III. THE COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY'S REBUTTAL ARGUMENT
Caprio next contends that the Commonwealth's Attorney's
statements were improper. Based upon the timing of the
objection and defense counsel's later explanation offered for
the record, the issue we are limited to review on appeal is the
propriety of the Commonwealth's Attorney's comments about the
jury's responsibility to the community and to the victim's
family. 3 See Humbert v. Commonwealth, 29 Va. App. 783, 791-92,
514 S.E.2d 804, 808 (1999) (limiting appeal of denial of motion
for mistrial to that which was specifically preserved in the
trial court); Rule 5A:18.
Due to the nature and timing of the penalty phase of a
bifurcated trial, the Supreme Court of Virginia has consistently
3
Caprio does not, however, specify which statements he
finds objectionable. Furthermore, at trial, Caprio never
suggested what made the Commonwealth's Attorney's comments
improper. Caprio did object, however, and is now limited to the
specific objection he raised at trial.
- 11 -
acknowledged the appropriateness of a deterrence argument to
persuade a jury to assign a greater sentence to a guilty
defendant. See, e.g., Wilkins v. Commonwealth, 253 Va. 156, 482
S.E.2d 837 (1997) (Commonwealth's attorney's comments that jury
had the "opportunity as the conscience of this community to deal
with this person" and that the jury could "send the message to
[the defendant] . . . that we will not tolerate the sale and
purchase of drugs in this county" was proper at the penalty
phase of trial); Hutchins v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 17, 20, 255
S.E.2d 459, 461 (1979) (stating that the court did not disagree
with the Attorney General's observation "that it is proper for a
prosecutor to ask a jury to fix a punishment in a particular
case that will deter others from committing like offenses").
The Commonwealth's Attorney's comments with respect to the
jury's responsibility to the community were, therefore, entirely
proper. Neither a cautionary instruction nor a mistrial should
have been granted based on this portion of his argument.
Furthermore, references to the jury's duty to the victim's
family were also proper since the Commonwealth's Attorney was
only asking the jury to consider the loss to the family when
assigning punishment. See George v. Commonwealth, 242 Va. 264,
281-82, 411 S.E.2d 12, 22-23 (1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 973,
112 S. Ct. 1591, 118 L.Ed.2d 308 (1992).
- 12 -
IV. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
Since the Commonwealth's case involved circumstantial
evidence, Caprio claims that his conviction should be reversed
because the Commonwealth failed to exclude his reasonable
hypotheses of innocence. We disagree.
When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on
appeal, this Court considers the evidence "in the light most
favorable to the Commonwealth," affording it "all reasonable
inferences" fairly deducible from the evidence. Higginbotham v.
Commonwealth, 216 Va. 349, 352, 218 S.E.2d 534, 537 (1975);
Iglesias v. Commonwealth, 7 Va. App. 93, 109, 372 S.E.2d 170,
179 (1988) (en banc). The decision of the trier of fact will
not be disturbed on appeal unless plainly wrong or without
evidence to support it. See Wright v. Commonwealth, 224 Va.
502, 505, 297 S.E.2d 711, 713 (1982). Determination of witness
credibility and the weight to be afforded testimony are matters
for the trier of fact. See Swanson v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App.
376, 378-79, 382 S.E.2d 258, 259 (1989).
Viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the
evidence proved that Bickley was limping the night of the murder
and was afraid to go outside alone because her ex-boyfriend
recently had been released from prison. She was also afraid of
the dark. Webb, her tenant, was in the process of moving his
possessions out of her house on the night of the murder.
Bickley was last seen alive at eight o'clock that night driving
- 13 -
off with Caprio in his truck to get beer. At eleven o'clock,
Bickley's beaten body was found near a convenience store and
near her home. She died by strangulation both manually and by
use of a plastic wire tie, between 8:30 p.m. and 12:30 a.m.
Caprio possessed similar tie-straps in his garage and in his
truck. Bickley's blood was found on the shorts Caprio wore the
night of the murder.
When Caprio made a statement to the police, he told them
that Bickley had gotten out of his truck and simply disappeared.
According to Caprio, after they left the store, Bickley acted as
if she was angry about something and kept telling him that "she
wanted out" of the truck. He also told the police that she was
drunk, but when she was drunk she would not bother anyone.
Caprio denied that they had a fight while she was in the truck
and denied any knowledge of the murder. At trial, however,
Caprio testified that a fight occurred en route to the store
because he would not help her evict Webb from her home.
According to Caprio, Bickley became angry and belligerent and
got out of his truck. Furthermore, when Caprio originally told
Bickley's mother about that night, he did not mention anything
about Bickley discussing an argument with Webb.
Whether an hypothesis of innocence is reasonable is a
question of fact, to be decided by the trier of fact. See
Cantrell v. Commonwealth, 7 Va. App. 269, 290, 373 S.E.2d 328,
339 (1988), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 911, 110 S. Ct. 2600, 110
- 14 -
L.Ed.2d 280 (1990). The Commonwealth need only exclude
reasonable hypotheses of innocence that flow from the evidence,
not those imagined by the defendant or his attorney. See
Hamilton v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 751, 755, 433 S.E.2d 27,
29 (1993). The jury was entitled to reject the portions of
Caprio's testimony that were not worthy of belief.
Caprio's hypothesis of innocence is implausible and
inconsistent. In essence, Caprio argues that Bickley, who was
too scared to go outside alone, got out of his truck in the
middle of the street because he would not help her evict a
tenant who was already packing his possessions to leave and
that, despite her limp, she was able to walk off and disappear
in the short time it took him to circle the block. Bickley was
last seen alive with Caprio. She was strangled manually and
with a plastic wire tie. Similar ties were found in Caprio's
garage and truck. Bickley suffered extensive blows from a blunt
object. Her blood was found on the shorts worn by Caprio that
night. The evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict, and
the conviction is affirmed.
Affirmed.
- 15 -