Justin William Swanson v. Commonwealth of Virginia ( 2008 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Kelsey, Haley and Petty
Argued at Salem, Virginia
JUSTIN WILLIAM SWANSON
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 0232-07-3 JUDGE D. ARTHUR KELSEY
AUGUST 26, 2008
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY
Charles J. Strauss, Judge
Glenn L. Berger (Berger & Thornhill, on brief), for appellant.
Karen Misbach, Senior Assistant Attorney General II (Robert F.
McDonnell, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
A jury convicted Justin William Swanson of various offenses, including attempted
malicious wounding in violation of Code § 18.2-51.1 and felony hit-and-run in violation of Code
§ 46.2-894. On appeal, Swanson argues that insufficient evidence supports his attempted
malicious wounding conviction. The felony hit-and-run conviction should also be overturned,
Swanson contends, because of a fatal variance between the indictment and the proof at trial.
Finding merit in neither argument, we affirm.
I.
On appeal, we review the evidence in the “light most favorable” to the Commonwealth.
Commonwealth v. Hudson, 265 Va. 505, 514, 578 S.E.2d 781, 786 (2003). Viewing the record
through this evidentiary prism requires us to “discard the evidence of the accused in conflict with
that of the Commonwealth, and regard as true all the credible evidence favorable to the
*
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
Commonwealth and all fair inferences to be drawn therefrom.” Parks v. Commonwealth, 221
Va. 492, 498, 270 S.E.2d 755, 759 (1980) (emphasis and citation omitted).
So viewed, the evidence in this case showed that State Trooper Scott Martin clocked
Swanson traveling 80 miles an hour in a 55-mile-per-hour zone. Activating his emergency lights
and siren, Trooper Martin signaled Swanson to stop his vehicle. Swanson ignored the signal and
attempted to elude the trooper. Swanson went off the road, through a field, and then back onto
another road. Trooper Martin continued on the same road and, when he was able to get ahead of
Swanson, stopped his police cruiser across the road to block Swanson. Swanson veered onto the
shoulder of the road and managed to get around the cruiser.
Trooper Martin continued to pursue Swanson at a high rate of speed. After swerving
back and forth across both lanes of the two-lane highway, Swanson came to a complete stop.
Trooper Martin stopped his police cruiser behind Swanson’s pickup truck. Swanson then
unexpectedly put his truck in reverse and rammed the cruiser. Trooper Martin testified that
Swanson backed up at a “pretty fast rate of speed” and hit the cruiser with enough force to push
the truck’s rear bumper “up on top” of the hood of the cruiser. Swanson continued to accelerate
his engine causing the tires to spin and smoke. The truck was prevented from crashing into the
cruiser’s windshield when the rear axle of the truck got caught on the cruiser’s “push bumper.”
Swanson freed his pickup truck from the hood of the police cruiser and drove away.
Trooper Martin followed. Swanson then repeated his earlier maneuver. He came to a complete
stop. When the trooper stopped behind him, Swanson put his vehicle in reverse and again
rammed the front of the cruiser. After speeding away, Swanson did the same thing a third time:
abruptly stopping his pickup truck, waiting for Trooper Martin to stop his cruiser, and then
ramming the cruiser in reverse gear.
-2-
After Swanson’s fourth attempt was unsuccessful, he sped away, with Trooper Martin in
pursuit. Martin struck Swanson’s pickup truck a couple times in an effort to disable it. When
the truck came to a stop, Martin got out of his cruiser with his weapon drawn. Swanson then
accelerated in reverse toward Martin. No contact was made, however, and Martin escaped
injury. Martin fired his weapon in an effort to shoot out Swanson’s tires, but Swanson again
sped away. Martin returned to his cruiser and continued the chase. Swanson got away. Later
that night, Swanson called police claiming his pickup truck had been stolen. The next day, he
turned himself in to police admitting he had been the driver.
Among other charges, the grand jury returned indictments asserting that Swanson
attempted to maliciously wound Trooper Martin and, in the process, committed felony
hit-and-run. The hit-and-run indictment was entitled: “Indictment for Felony Hit/Run.” It
alleged that Swanson, on the date of his encounter with Trooper Martin, was “the driver of a
motor vehicle involved in an accident in which a person was injured or damage to attended
property, [and] did unlawfully and feloniously fail to immediately stop at the scene of the
accident and provide information and assistance as required by Virginia Code Section 46.2-894.”
Prior to trial, Swanson asked for and received a bill of particulars. With respect to the
felony hit-and-run charge, the bill of particulars stated that “the defendant committed the offense
of hit and run felony when he fled and successfully evaded the trooper after all of the contact
between the vehicles ended.” Swanson did not challenge the bill of particulars as insufficiently
specific. Nor did he move to dismiss the felony hit-and-run indictment because of any facial
insufficiency in its factual allegations.
At trial, Trooper Martin testified about the ramming incidents. The Commonwealth also
presented evidence that the damage to Martin’s vehicle exceeded $6,400. In his defense,
Swanson presented the testimony of several character witnesses who testified Swanson had a
-3-
reputation for being law abiding as well as expert testimony of a psychologist who testified
Swanson’s distressed mental state caused him to go into an insane “blind panic.” The
Commonwealth responded in rebuttal with expert psychological testimony asserting that
Swanson’s conduct could not be blamed on any mental disorders.
At the close of the evidence, Swanson’s counsel moved to strike the attempted malicious
wounding charge on the ground that no evidence proved that Swanson intended to “maim,
disfigure, disable or kill” Trooper Martin as required by Code § 18.2-51.1. The felony
hit-and-run charge should also be dismissed, he argued, because of a fatal variance between the
indictment and the proof at trial. The trial court denied the motions and submitted the case to the
jury. The jury found Swanson guilty of, among other charges, attempted malicious wounding in
violation of Code § 18.2-51.1 and felony hit-and-run in violation of Code § 46.2-894.
II.
On appeal, Swanson repeats the arguments made in the trial court. We find no merit in
either assertion.
A. ATTEMPTED MALICIOUS WOUNDING — SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
When a jury decides the case, Code § 8.01-680 requires that “we review the jury’s
decision to see if reasonable jurors could have made the choices that the jury did make. We let
the decision stand unless we conclude no rational juror could have reached that decision.” Pease
v. Commonwealth, 39 Va. App. 342, 355, 573 S.E.2d 272, 278 (2002) (en banc), aff’d, 266 Va.
397, 588 S.E.2d 149 (2003). “Sufficiency-of-the-evidence review involves assessment by the
courts of whether the evidence adduced at trial could support any rational determination of guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 67 (1984).
It follows that a reviewing court does not “ask itself whether it believes that the evidence
at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307,
-4-
318-19 (1979) (emphasis in original and citation omitted). Instead, we ask only “whether, after
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact
could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Maxwell v.
Commonwealth, 275 Va. 437, 442, 657 S.E.2d 499, 502 (2008) (quoting Jackson, 443 U.S. at
319) (emphasis in original). These principles recognize that an appellate court is “not permitted
to reweigh the evidence,” Nusbaum v. Berlin, 273 Va. 385, 408, 641 S.E.2d 494, 507 (2007),
because appellate courts have no authority “to preside de novo over a second trial,” Haskins v.
Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 1, 11, 602 S.E.2d 402, 407 (2004). 1
Applying this standard of review, we hold that the evidence supports the rationality of the
jury’s finding that Swanson attempted to maliciously wound Trooper Martin. A criminal attempt
requires an intent to commit the crime coupled with a direct, though ineffectual, act towards its
commission. Coles v. Commonwealth, 270 Va. 585, 589, 621 S.E.2d 109, 111 (2005). An
elusive concept, intent is “formed in a person’s mind and may be, and frequently is, shown by
circumstances.” Holley v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 228, 234, 604 S.E.2d 127, 130 (2004)
(citation omitted) (affirming attempted malicious wounding conviction). “Such intent may be
inferred from the actor’s conduct and the attendant circumstances.” 4 Charles E. Torcia,
Wharton’s Criminal Law § 695, at 589-91 (15th ed. 1996). To be sure, “in criminal attempt
cases, ‘the fact finder is often allowed broad latitude in determining the specific intent of the
1
This deferential standard of review “applies not only to the historical facts themselves,
but the inferences from those facts as well.” Crowder v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 658, 663
n.2, 588 S.E.2d 384, 387 n.2 (2003). “The inferences to be drawn from proven facts, so long as
they are reasonable, are within the province of the trier of fact.” Id. (citation omitted). Thus, a
jury may “draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts,” Haskins, 44 Va. App.
at 10, 602 S.E.2d at 406 (citations omitted), unless doing so would push “into the realm of non
sequitur,” Thomas v. Commonwealth, 48 Va. App. 605, 608, 633 S.E.2d 229, 231 (2006)
(citation omitted).
-5-
actor.’” Siquina v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 694, 700, 508 S.E.2d 350, 353 (1998) (citation
omitted); Wilson v. Greene, 155 F.3d 396, 406 (4th Cir. 1998). 2
By repeatedly ramming his pickup truck into Trooper Martin’s cruiser — particularly the
time when Swanson backed up onto the cruiser’s hood and was prevented from breaking through
the cruiser’s windshield only by the fortuity of the pickup’s axle getting caught on the cruiser’s
push bumper — Swanson engaged in conduct from which the jury could infer beyond a
reasonable doubt that he intended to maliciously wound Trooper Martin. “A motor vehicle,
wrongfully used, can be a weapon as deadly as a gun or a knife.” Coles, 270 Va. at 589-90, 621
S.E.2d at 111 (citation omitted). The deliberateness of Swanson’s actions, coupled with the
severity of his repeated ramming collisions, demonstrated his intent to “maim, disfigure, disable
or kill” Trooper Martin. See, e.g., Holley, 44 Va. App. at 236-37, 604 S.E.2d at 131.
B. FATAL VARIANCE BETWEEN INDICTMENT AND PROOF
We should vacate his hit-and-run conviction, Swanson argues, because a fatal variance
exists between the indictment and the proof at trial. This argument rests on the assertion that
“the indictment alleged a felony involving injury to a person. It failed to prove this felony. This
was a fatal variance.” Appellant’s Br. at 9. Swanson’s question presented on appeal frames the
issue this way: “Can evidence showing only property damage and no personal injury support a
conviction for felony hit and run where the defendant was indicted for leaving the scene of an
accident involving personal injury and no amendment was made to the indictment to allege
damage over $1,000?” Id. at 1.
2
See, e.g., Holley, 44 Va. App. at 234, 604 S.E.2d at 130 (affirming a conviction for
attempted malicious wounding and stating that a defendant’s intent can be inferred from the
“immediate, direct, and necessary consequences of his voluntary act” (citation omitted)); see also
Howard v. Commonwealth, 207 Va. 222, 228, 148 S.E.2d 800, 804 (1966) (applying inference to
a charge of attempted murder); Moody v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 702, 706-07, 508 S.E.2d
354, 356 (1998) (recognizing inference applicable to a charge of attempted malicious wounding).
-6-
The underlying right protected by the fatal variance doctrine is the right to not be
convicted of a crime other than the one charged. Not every variance is fatal. See Jolly v.
Commonwealth, 136 Va. 756, 762, 118 S.E. 109, 112 (1923) (holding that an indictment was
valid despite having a “formal defect” when the substance of the allegations was clear). It must
be one that charges a wholly different offense than the one proved — like charging theft of
money by false pretenses from victim A, while proving only theft by false pretenses from victim
B, Gardner v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 18, 546 S.E.2d 686 (2001), or charging a defendant with
shooting into one woman’s residence while proving that he shot into another woman’s residence,
Etheridge v. Commonwealth, 210 Va. 328, 171 S.E.2d 190 (1969).
We agree that fatal variance principle would similarly preclude the Commonwealth from
indicting a hit-and-run defendant based solely on an allegation of personal injuries and then
seeking to convict him at trial based solely on proof of property damage. Fontaine v.
Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 156, 165, 487 S.E.2d 241, 245 (1997), overruled in part on other
grounds, Edwards v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 752, 761-66, 589 S.E.2d 444, 448-51 (2003)
(en banc). But that is not what happened here. The indictment charged Swanson with a
hit-and-run offense involving personal injury or property damage in violation of Code
§ 46.2-894. See Scott v. Commonwealth, 49 Va. App. 68, 76, 636 S.E.2d 893, 897 (2006)
(pointing out that the indictment in Fontaine “did not charge the defendant generally with hit and
run in violation of Code § 46.2-894” (emphasis in original)). The proof at trial did not show any
personal injury to Trooper Martin but did show over $6,000 in property damage to his vehicle.
Swanson’s indictment, moreover, specifically alleged a felony hit-and-run offense. The
title of the indictment (“Indictment for Felony Hit/Run”) as well as its text (alleging Swanson
acted “feloniously”) made this clear. The indictment cited Code § 46.2-894 and thus
incorporated by reference its requirement that the property damage exceed $1,000. When
-7-
determining the scope of the charged offense, we “consider as ‘incorporated by reference’ the
statutes cited in the indictment.” Schwartz v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 407, 427-28, 611
S.E.2d 631, 641 (2005) (quoting Reed v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 665, 667, 353 S.E.2d 166,
167-68 (1987)); see also Walshaw v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 103, 109-10, 603 S.E.2d 633,
636 (2004) (holding that the incorporation by reference of the statute cited in the indictment
“provides adequate notice of the charges against the accused” (citation omitted)). Nothing in
Swanson’s indictment suggested the property damage would be less than $1,000 or that he was
actually being charged with a misdemeanor hit-and-run charge.
In short, the indictment against Swanson charged a felony hit-and-run based alternatively
on personal injury or property damage in violation of Code § 46.2-894. The trial court convicted
Swanson of felony hit-and-run based entirely on property damage in violation of Code
§ 46.2-894. There was no variance, much less a fatal one, between the offense charged in the
indictment and the offense proven at trial. 3
There being no variance, we need not address whether the hit-and-run indictment was
facially flawed because it failed to expressly allege more than $1,000 in property damage. Cf.
3
We acknowledge, but find unpersuasive, Swanson’s reliance on Hall v Commonwealth,
8 Va. App. 350, 381 S.E.2d 512 (1989). There, we reversed a conviction under Code
§ 18.2-300(A) (possessing a sawed-off shotgun during a crime of violence) when the indictment
alleged only a violation of Code § 18.2-300(B) (possessing a sawed-off shotgun “for any other
purpose” unauthorized by law). In this respect, Code § 18.2-300 defined “two separate crimes”
rather than one crime with mere “gradations of punishment.” Schwartz, 45 Va. App. at 435-37,
611 S.E.2d at 645-46 (distinguishing Hall).
In contrast, Swanson’s indictment charged him with felony hit-and-run in violation of
Code § 46.2-894 — a single statutory offense implicating a single gradation of punishment.
“Any person convicted of a violation of this section is guilty of (i) a Class 5 felony if the accident
results in injury to or the death of any person, or if the accident results in more than $1000 of
damage to property or (ii) a Class 1 misdemeanor if the accident results in damage of $1000 or
less to property.” Code § 46.2-894 (emphasis added). As we have said in similar contexts,
“such disparate penalties do not spawn gradations of the offense. The crime is not defined by the
penalty.” Schwartz, 45 Va. App. at 437, 611 S.E.2d at 646 (citation omitted).
-8-
Stamper v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 707, 712-13, 324 S.E.2d 682, 685-86 (1985) (pointing out
that defendant’s “fatal variance” argument was a misguided attack on the facial sufficiency of the
indictment). Facial challenges to an indictment must be made prior to trial as required by the
statute of jeofails, Code § 19.2-227, and Rule 3A:9. Id. The Virginia Supreme Court has
“consistently and repeatedly held that generally a defendant must challenge the sufficiency of an
indictment before the jury’s verdict, or the alleged defect is waived.” Wolfe v. Commonwealth,
265 Va. 193, 224, 576 S.E.2d 471, 489 (2003). 4 Because Swanson raised only a fatal variance
objection at trial, rather than a facial sufficiency challenge before trial, we rule only on the issue
properly presented to us for appellate review.
III.
In sum, the evidence supports the jury’s finding that Swanson attempted to maliciously
wound Trooper Martin. We also find the trial court did not err in rejecting Swanson’s argument
that a fatal variance between the indictment and the proof at trial required a dismissal of the
felony hit-and-run charge. We thus affirm both of these convictions.
Affirmed.
4
See also Parker v. Commonwealth, 42 Va. App. 358, 379, 592 S.E.2d 358, 369 (2004)
(“Defects in the charging instrument are ordinarily waived unless raised before trial.”), aff’d, 269
Va. 174, 608 S.E.2d 925 (2005) (per curiam); Harris v. Commonwealth, 39 Va. App. 670, 674,
576 S.E.2d 228, 230 (2003) (en banc).
-9-