Herbert Lewis, Sr. v. Commonwealth ( 1996 )


Menu:
  •                      COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
    Present: Judges Baker, Bray and Overton
    Argued at Norfolk, Virginia
    HERBERT LEWIS, SR.
    v.        Record No. 2045-94-1             MEMORANDUM OPINION *
    BY JUDGE JOSEPH E. BAKER
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA                    FEBRUARY 6, 1996
    FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ACCOMACK COUNTY
    Glen A. Tyler, Judge
    Carl H. Bundick for appellant.
    Kathleen B. Martin, Assistant Attorney General
    (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on brief),
    for appellee.
    Herbert Lewis, Sr. (appellant) appeals from a judgment of
    the Circuit Court of Accomack County (trial court) that approved
    his jury convictions for two counts of rape and one count of
    attempted rape.   He contends that the trial court erroneously
    admitted evidence of his flight from officers and further erred
    by refusing instructions he offered relating to "aggravated
    sexual battery" and "sexual battery."    Finding no error, we
    affirm the convictions.
    Upon familiar principles, we view the evidence in the light
    most favorable to the Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable
    inferences fairly deducible therefrom.     Higginbotham v.
    Commonwealth, 
    216 Va. 349
    , 352, 
    218 S.E.2d 534
    , 537 (1975).
    Because the parties are well advised concerning the evidence, we
    *
    Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
    designated for publication.
    state only the facts necessary to an understanding of this
    opinion.
    On April 8, 1993, appellant was arrested on three counts of
    rape alleged to have occurred on Chincoteague Island, following
    which he was released on bond requiring his appearance in
    district court on April 13, 1993.    On that date, appellant failed
    to appear.   Pursuant to a capias issued, members of the police
    attempted to stop appellant when they sighted him on a causeway,
    appearing to flee to the mainland.     Appellant failed to accede to
    police warnings and during the chase by the police, appellant
    drove his motor vehicle at speeds "in excess of eighty miles an
    hour," finally stopping only after he had run off the road.
    At trial, the victim testified that after being permitted to
    enter her house, appellant, without her permission, pushed her to
    the floor, threatened her, and raped her three times between
    10:30 p.m. and daybreak the next morning.    The victim denied
    having consensual sex with appellant.    A doctor testified that
    his examination of the victim's vaginal entrance showed trauma
    and disclosed sperm.   The trauma, the doctor said, resembled that
    seen in younger women who had been "gang raped."
    Appellant's defense was that the victim had consented to
    have sexual intercourse but that he was unable to perform due to
    medical conditions from which he suffers.
    Evidence that the accused fled to avoid arrest is admissible
    to show consciousness of guilt.     See Bowie v. Commonwealth, 184
    - 2 -
    Va. 381, 392, 
    35 S.E.2d 345
    , 350 (1945), and cases there cited.
    Here, the evidence of appellant's flight clearly shows his
    intention to elude the police and avoid arrest on the capias.
    Although the evidence incidentally disclosed that appellant may
    also have been guilty of another crime, it still may be shown to
    prove the consciousness of guilt.       See Langhorne v. Commonwealth,
    
    13 Va. App. 97
    , 102, 
    409 S.E.2d 476
    , 479 (1991).      The purpose of
    the evidence concerning the manner in which appellant was driving
    was not to show he drove recklessly, but rather to show his
    intent to avoid trial on the rape charges.
    At trial, appellant's defense was not only that he did not
    commit the rapes, but that he was incapable of committing those
    offenses.   It is clear that appellant had to be convicted of
    rape, attempted rape, or set free, as no other offenses are shown
    by the record.   For that reason, it was not error to refuse
    instructions that dealt with sexual battery as a lesser-included
    offense of the crime of rape.    See Bennett v. Commonwealth, 
    236 Va. 448
    , 470-71, 
    374 S.E.2d 303
    , 319 (1988), cert. denied, 
    490 U.S. 1028
     (1989); Frye v. Commonwealth, 
    231 Va. 370
    , 389, 
    345 S.E.2d 267
    , 281 (1986).
    For the reasons stated, the judgment of the trial court is
    affirmed.
    Affirmed.
    - 3 -