Lakisha R. Smith v. Commonwealth of Virginia ( 2002 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Bumgardner and Agee
Argued at Alexandria, Virginia
LAKISHA R. SMITH
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 1380-01-4 JUDGE RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III
JUNE 11, 2002
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA
John E. Kloch, Judge
Patrick N. Anderson (Patrick N. Anderson,
P.C., on briefs, for appellant.
Leah A. Darron, Assistant Attorney General
(Randolph A. Beales, Attorney General, on
brief), for appellee.
Lakisha R. Smith appeals her conviction of voluntary
manslaughter following a jury trial. She contends the evidence
was insufficient because she killed in self-defense and the jury
failed to follow instructions by not finding she killed in
self-defense. Finding no error, we affirm.
On appeal, "we review the evidence in the light most
favorable to the Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable
inferences fairly deducible therefrom." Martin v. Commonwealth,
4 Va. App. 438, 443, 358 S.E.2d 415, 418 (1987). If the
evidence supports the conviction, this Court is "not permitted
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
to substitute its judgment, even if its view of the evidence
might differ from the conclusions reached by the finder of fact
at the trial." Commonwealth v. Taylor, 256 Va. 514, 518, 506
S.E.2d 312, 314 (1998) (citations omitted).
The defendant and her boyfriend, the victim, were bathing
two young children when they began arguing. The argument
deteriorated into a pushing match, and then the victim put his
hands to the defendant's throat and began choking her. The
defendant withdrew a knife and stabbed the victim in the neck.
He died from the single stab wound, which had severed the
subclavian artery.
The Commonwealth's primary evidence of the altercation came
from an eyewitness who demonstrated her testimony about the
movements of the victim and the defendant right before the
defendant stabbed the victim. 1 The defendant testified she
stabbed the victim because he was choking her. She said that as
they scuffled the victim began choking her with both hands. He
always kept one hand on her throat, but she was able to retrieve
a knife from her shirt and stab him.
1
The only description in the record of this demonstration
appears in the Commonwealth's closing argument. The
Commonwealth's Attorney recounts the demonstration: the victim
stood in front of the defendant with his hands at his sides as
the defendant turned away, retrieved the knife, raised it above
her head, and stabbed the victim in one motion.
- 2 -
Both versions of the events agree that a fight developed
and the victim began choking the defendant. From that point,
the versions differed. The Commonwealth's evidence indicated
the victim had stopped choking the defendant and was standing
with his hands at his sides. The defendant testified the victim
continuously choked her and she could not get his hands from her
throat. The Commonwealth showed the parties moved about the
bathroom, but the defendant said she could not get away. The
medical examiner observed one abrasion on the defendant's neck
but no other "findings . . . typical of manual strangulation."
The Commonwealth showed the defendant purchased the murder
weapon an hour and a half before the killing after an earlier
argument over the victim going to visit another woman. The
Commonwealth maintains she pulled the knife after the argument
renewed in the bathroom. The defendant testified she bought the
knife for self-protection and not because of an argument.
The evidence of self-defense was in conflict. The evidence
differed on whether the defendant was at fault in provoking the
fight. The trial court instructed on both forms of
self-defense. If the defendant was at fault, the evidence
varied on whether the defendant retreated as far as she could or
attempted to abandon the fight. For either form of
self-defense, the evidence supported either alternative finding
for the two issues of whether the defendant reasonably feared
death or great bodily harm or whether she used reasonable force
- 3 -
under the circumstances as they appeared to her. See Peeples v.
Commonwealth, 30 Va. App. 626, 519 S.E.2d 382 (1999) (en banc).
The conflicts in the evidence existed for each essential aspect
of self-defense.
"Self-defense is an affirmative defense which the accused
must prove by introducing sufficient evidence to raise a
reasonable doubt about his guilt." Smith v. Commonwealth, 17
Va. App. 68, 71, 435 S.E.2d 414, 416 (1993) (citation omitted).
While the defendant's version of the incident would permit a
finding of self-defense, it did not mandate that result. Her
defense rested upon her credibility. Her evidence was not so
compelling that reasonable persons must adopt it when evaluating
the evidence presented at trial. Reasonable persons could
equally adopt the version presented by the Commonwealth.
The jury heard and saw the witnesses when they testified.
It assessed their credibility and resolved the conflicts in the
evidence against the defendant when it found her guilty. As the
trial court noted, there were many grounds upon which the jury
could have convicted, or disbelieved the evidence supporting the
affirmative defense. "Whether the evidence raises such a
reasonable doubt is a question of fact that will not be
disturbed on appeal unless plainly wrong or unsupported by the
evidence." Utz v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 411, 415, 505
S.E.2d 380, 382 (1998) (citation omitted); Thomason v.
Commonwealth, 178 Va. 489, 498-500, 17 S.E.2d 374, 377-78
- 4 -
(1941); Gardner v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 418, 426, 350 S.E.2d
229, 233 (1986).
The defendant also contends the jury failed to follow the
instructions of law. In essence, the defendant argues the jury
disregarded the instructions because it did not find she acted
in self-defense. However, the evidence of self-defense was in
conflict, and the defendant points to nothing to show the jury
disregarded the trial court's instructions. Without clear
evidence to the contrary, a jury is presumed to have followed a
judge's instructions. Spencer v. Commonwealth, 240 Va. 78, 95,
393 S.E.2d 609, 619 (1990) (instruction to disregard); LeVasseur
v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 564, 589, 304 S.E.2d 644, 657 (1983).
Credible and competent evidence supported the jury's
verdict of guilty, and nothing suggests it did not follow the
instructions of law. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction.
Affirmed.
- 5 -