Jamar Shante Paxton v. Commonwealth ( 2002 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Frank, Felton and Kelsey
Argued at Richmond, Virginia
JAMAR SHANTE PAXTON
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 3063-01-2 JUDGE WALTER S. FELTON, JR.
DECEMBER 31, 2002
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
Margaret P. Spencer, Judge
Rodney L. Jefferson (Jefferson & Lassiter, on
brief), for appellant.
Margaret W. Reed, Assistant Attorney General
(Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General, on
brief), for appellee.
Jamar Paxton was convicted in a jury trial of (1) first
degree murder, in violation of Code § 18.2-32; (2) use of a
firearm during the commission of a murder, in violation of Code
§ 18.2-53.1; (3) maiming, in violation of Code § 18.2-51; (4)
attempted robbery, in violation of Code §§ 18.2-26 and 18.2-58;
(5) shooting into an occupied dwelling, in violation of Code
§ 18.2-279; (6) use of a firearm during the commission of a
malicious wounding, in violation of Code § 18.2-53.1; and (7)
use of a firearm during the commission of an attempted robbery,
in violation of Code § 18.2-53.1.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
On appeal, he contends that it was reversible error for the
trial court (1) to allow a witness to testify to a
co-conspirator's statement when the Commonwealth had not
established a prima facie case of conspiracy; (2) to admit
statements into evidence as excited utterances or co-conspirator
statements when there was no identification of the declarant;
(3) to refuse a jury instruction on the offense of accessory
after the fact; (4) to refuse to clarify the jury's question
regarding Instruction 7 (concert of action) and Instruction 13
(principal in the second degree); and (5) to allow the jury
verdict to stand when the evidence was insufficient to support
conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
I. BACKGROUND
A. THE OFFENSES
On the evening of February 14, 2001, Lynwood Thrower
confronted Matthias Washington on the front porch of 3101
Garland Avenue. Thrower demanded fifty dollars and drugs from
Washington. Washington told Thrower that he did not have any
drugs or money to spare. Thrower informed Washington that he
was going to come back "with his boys" and rob him. He
subsequently stated, "[Y]ou know what, you going to be my next
victim." Thrower drove away in a four-door gray Cadillac.
Approximately one hour later, Thrower returned to 3101
Garland Avenue with Jamar Paxton, William Sally, also known as
"Orbit," and an unnamed individual. Thrower was wearing a
- 2 -
bulletproof vest and armed with an AK-74 assault rifle. He
directed Paxton, Sally, and the unnamed individual to go around
to the back of the house.
Upon seeing Thrower, Washington ran inside and up the
staircase past Adrian Harris, who resided upstairs. Thrower
followed him inside and from the bottom of the stairs, yelled to
someone. Hearing Thrower, Washington realized that people were
coming around to the back of the house so he exited through an
upstairs window and escaped by jumping off the porch roof.
Thrower walked up the stairs and placed the muzzle of the
assault rifle between Harris' eyes. He then yelled, "Kick the
backdoor in." Almost immediately, a shot was fired at the back
door and then the door was kicked in. After a second shot from
the back of the house rang out, Thrower proceeded back down the
stairs.
At the time of the intrusion, Melvin Brinkley and his
girlfriend Roberta Latham were residing in the downstairs of
3101 Garland Avenue. That night they were babysitting
twenty-three-month-old Kayla Brown. Brinkley and Latham were
sleeping in the back room when loud kicks and gunshots awakened
them. When Brinkley got up, three men were standing in the
kitchen doorway. He heard one say, "Get the money, get the
drugs." Shortly thereafter another said, "Oops, we're in the
wrong house." Brinkley stated that at least two different
- 3 -
weapons were fired before the three men turned and left through
the back door.
Brinkley was unable to identify the men because the
intruders cut the electricity to the house. When the three men
left, Latham ran out the front door. Brinkley followed her, but
remembered that the infant Kayla was sleeping on the couch. He
ran back into the apartment to get Kayla. Upon entering the
apartment, Brinkley closed and locked the door. Suddenly,
gunfire erupted through the front door. Thrower began firing
the AK-74 into the downstairs apartment, hitting Brinkley in the
leg. Kayla died as a result of multiple gunshots to her head.
B. THE EVIDENCE
Detective Rick Warthen, a forensics crime scene
investigator with the Richmond Police Department, inspected the
crime scene. He recovered cartridge cases and bullets
indicating the use of at least three firearms. More than twenty
of the cartridge cases found near the front door of the
downstairs apartment were fired from an assault rifle. In
addition to collecting bullets and cartridge cases, blood
samples were also collected. Of the numerous samples collected,
DNA testing revealed that Paxton's blood was found inside the
back door of the downstairs apartment and on a rubber hose found
in the alleyway of 3101 Garland Avenue.
In addition to the crime scene being inspected, Thrower's
gray Cadillac was searched for evidence. The Cadillac was seen
- 4 -
after the shooting, parked in the emergency room driveway of the
Medical College of Virginia. Detective William Thompson saw the
Cadillac when he responded to a call at the hospital. Inside
the hospital, he found Thrower and Sally in the waiting room
while Paxton received treatment for a gunshot wound in his foot.
The Cadillac was eventually impounded and searched by
Detective Warthen for evidence. In the rear passenger seat, a
bloody Timberland boot was found. DNA testing revealed the
blood to be Paxton's. A bottle of prescription drugs containing
Paxton's name was also discovered in the vehicle. DNA testing
on a "doo rag" and a skullcap found in the vehicle revealed that
Sally could not be eliminated as a contributor to DNA samples
taken from them. 1 However, Thrower and Paxton were eliminated.
DNA testing of samples taken from the steering wheel revealed
that Sally and Paxton were eliminated as possible contributors,
but Thrower could not be eliminated as a contributor.
Detective James Simmons interviewed Paxton regarding the
events of February 14, 2001. In that interview, Paxton denied
being in Thrower's Cadillac that evening. He claimed he was
leaving his cousin's house when he was shot in the foot and that
Sally and Thrower came to the hospital in the Cadillac after his
cousin had dropped him off at the emergency room. He denied
being at 3101 Garland Avenue when Brinkley and Kayla were shot.
1
A "doo rag" is a brimless, close-fitting piece of cloth
worn on the head, such as a bandana.
- 5 -
He also denied shooting a gun that night. Gunshot residue tests
were performed on Paxton, Sally, and Thrower. Test results
showed that all three had primer residue on their hands.
While awaiting trial, in the Richmond City jail, Paxton and
Thrower exchanged letters through a jail trustee. A forensic
document examiner compared their letters to other known writings
of Paxton and Thrower. He concluded that the letters were
indeed written by Paxton and Thrower. The contents of Thrower's
letter were not introduced at trial. However, Paxton's letter
was admitted and stated the following:
I didn't want to tell them I was anywhere
near the house but I'm trying to help you.
They have eye witnesses saying that me and
Orbit was on the back porch the whole time
then they heard me say oh shit and me and
Orbit ran to the car. Eye witnesses saw the
car parked in the alley. The lawyers know
just about everything. If the witnesses
seen us in the back porch that what we
should say. I can't say that I shot myself
because they checked me for gun powder and I
didn't have any on my hands. So, that won't
work. Just tell them that me and Orbit was
on the back porch and you went around the
front. Me and Orbit will tell them that we
didn't even see you with a gun so that means
if you had a gun it had to have been a small
one because we didn't notice it. And a big
gun wouldn't fit around your waist without
you walking funny and we didn't see you
walking funny at all. You get what I'm
saying? That means one of them had to have
the big gun. I'm going to tell them I don't
know exactly where the gun shots came from
but I'm assuming though [sic] a window at
the house and it sounded like an AKA. So
that means that one of them had to shoot me
because you had a hand gun. I can also tell
them that I heard two different guns
- 6 -
shooting. I'm not going to snitch on your
[sic] or nothing like that. I will do
whatever I can to help you as far as
stretching the story but I can't tell them I
did something that I didn't do and
especially something that DNA will prove I
didn't do because that will cross me up. I
got your back though. You got to realize
they got witnesses that watched the whole
thing from after I got shot because they
heard those first couple of gun shots.
People was probably watching everything
through their windows. If they ask who's
Valentines stuff in the car tell them it's
mines and that you was about to take me to
my baby-mother's house. And that the reason
you didn't take me earlier is because you
didn't see me until late that night at the
house where everybody be chillin at.
I'll holla back.
C. TRIAL
At trial, Harris testified for the Commonwealth. Among
other things, he testified that he heard Thrower say, "Kick the
backdoor in." Paxton objected on the grounds that the statement
was hearsay, inflammatory, and prejudicial. The court ruled the
statement was admissible under the co-conspirator exception to
the hearsay rule. The trial court ruled that the statement was
admissible even though Paxton was not indicted for conspiracy to
commit murder because the Commonwealth had established a prima
facie existence of a conspiracy. See Anderson v. Commonwealth,
215 Va. 21, 205 S.E.2d 393 (1974); Rabeiro v. Commonwealth, 10
Va. App. 61, 389 S.E.2d 731 (1990).
Brinkley also testified on behalf of the Commonwealth. He
testified that he heard one person at the back door say, "Get
- 7 -
the money, get the drugs," and another say, "Oops, we're in the
wrong house." Paxton objected on the grounds that the
statements were hearsay and that Brinkley could not identify who
made the statements. Brinkley did, however, identify who made
the statements. He identified the statements as coming from the
three individuals who were standing in the kitchen just inside
the back door that had just been kicked in. The prosecutor
argued that the statements were not hearsay, as they were
offered to prove they were said, not for the truth of the matter
asserted. The court ruled the statements were admissible as
either co-conspirators' statements or excited utterances.
At the conclusion of trial, Paxton requested that an
accessory after the fact instruction be given to the jury. The
court denied the request citing Dalton v. Commonwealth, 259 Va.
249, 524 S.E.2d 860 (2000), which held that unless the
Commonwealth charged a defendant with being an accessory after
the fact, he was not entitled to an accessory after the fact
instruction.
During jury deliberations, the jury sent a note to the
court asking if the judge could clarify instructions on "concert
of action" and "principal in the second degree." The following
colloquy ensued between the court and trial counsel:
THE COURT: Does either counsel wish to see
the juror's note or the instructions?
MR. HICKS [Commonwealth's Attorney]: No,
ma'am.
- 8 -
MR.HERRING [Paxton's attorney]: If the
Court read the note, I don't need to see it.
Judge, I would simply say that any comment
or editorial from counsel at this point
would do more harm than good. We've argued
those instructions at length. It's up to
the jurors now to sort them out as best they
can and arrive at a verdict if they can.
THE COURT: Do you have any problems with me
telling the jury that Instruction No. 7
[concert of action] and Instruction No. 13
[principal in the second degree] state the
law that is applicable to this case, please
read them again carefully?
MR. HERRING: I don't have any objection.
That's 7 and 13?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. HICKS: Counsel for the Commonwealth
also would not have any objection to the
court advising the jury that the law of the
case to be read as a whole, et cetera.
THE COURT: So the Court will tell them that
Instruction 7 and Instruction 13 state the
law applicable to the case. Please read
these instructions again and follow all the
instructions the Court has given them.
The jury was so instructed and subsequently convicted Paxton of
(1) first degree murder, in violation of Code § 18.2-32; (2) use
of a firearm during the commission of a murder, in violation of
Code § 18.2-53.1; (3) maiming, in violation of Code § 18.2-51;
(4) attempted robbery, in violation of Code §§ 18.2-26 and
18.2-58; (5) shooting into an occupied dwelling, in violation of
Code § 18.2-279; (6) use of a firearm during the commission of a
malicious wounding, in violation of Code § 18.2-53.1; and (7)
- 9 -
use of a firearm during the commission of an attempted robbery,
in violation of Code § 18.2-53.1.
II. CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS
Paxton first argues that the trial court erred in admitting
hearsay testimony of an alleged co-conspirator into evidence
because he was not charged with conspiracy to commit robbery and
the persons making the statements, and to whom the statements
were made, were not identified. We hold that the trial court
did not err in admitting the statements.
Washington testified that Thrower approached him and
demanded money and drugs from him. When he refused, Thrower
threatened Washington that he would return with his "boys" and
rob him. Washington further testified that Thrower stated he
was going to be his "next victim." There was no objection to
the admission of these statements. Approximately an hour later,
Thrower returned with three men. Thrower chased Washington
through the front door while Thrower's accomplices forcibly
gained entry to the residence through the back door.
Harris testified that while Thrower had an AK-74 pointed at
his head, Thrower yelled, "Kick the backdoor in." Paxton
objected to the statement on the grounds that it was hearsay.
The trial court, however, admitted the statement under the
co-conspirator exception, having determined there was prima
facie evidence of an existing conspiracy.
- 10 -
Brinkley testified that when the three men kicked in the
back door, he heard one say, "Get the money, get the drugs" and
another say, "Oops, we're in the wrong house." Again, Paxton
objected to the admission of the statements on the grounds that
they were hearsay. The prosecutor argued that the statements
were not hearsay because they were offered for the fact that
they were said. He also argued, in the alternative, that if the
statements were found to be hearsay, they were admissible as
statements of co-conspirators. The trial court admitted the
statements under the co-conspirator exception.
We conclude the statements were not hearsay. Hearsay is an
out-of-court statement, offered in court to prove the truth of
the matter asserted. Taylor v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 1, 9,
502 S.E.2d 113, 117 (1998). "Testimony about another's
statements is sometimes admitted to show the effect that the
statement had upon a person who heard the statement. Such
testimony is technically not hearsay, since the issue is not
whether the statement was true, but what its effect was upon the
person overhearing it." Charles Friend, The Law of Evidence in
Virginia § 18-3 (5th ed. 1999).
The statements "Kick the backdoor in," "Get the money, get
the drugs," and "Oops, we're in the wrong house," were not
offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted. To the
contrary, "Kick the backdoor in" was offered to show its effect
on Paxton, Sally, and the unnamed individual as they gained
- 11 -
forced entry through the back door of the apartment. Thrower
commanded the three men to gain entry to the apartment by
yelling, "Kick the backdoor in." Immediately thereafter,
gunshots were heard and someone kicked in the back door. The
statement was not offered to prove the truth or falsity of the
statement, but rather it was offered to show joint activity of
those downstairs acting in response to Thrower's command.
Similarly, "Get the money, get the drugs" and "Oops, we're
in the wrong house" were not hearsay because they were not
offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted. To the
contrary, when placed in context with the prior events and
statements, it exemplifies the furtherance of their purpose to
rob Washington. See Hamm v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 150, 156,
428 S.E.2d 517, 521 (1993) ("If a statement is offered for any
purpose other than to prove the truth or falsity of the contents
of the statement, such as to explain the declarant's conduct or
that of the person to whom it was made, it is not objectionable
as hearsay."). We find no error in the admission of each of
these statements. The trial court reached the right result for
the wrong reason, and we will not disturb its judgment.
Driscoll v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 449, 452, 417 S.E.2d 312,
313 (1992).
- 12 -
III. ACCESSORY-AFTER-THE-FACT INSTRUCTION
Paxton next argues that he was entitled to an
accessory-after-the-fact instruction because his letter offered
assistance to Thrower after the commission of the crimes. We
disagree.
"It is firmly established . . . that an accused cannot be
convicted of a crime that has not been charged, unless the crime
is a lesser-included offense of the crime charged."
Commonwealth v. Dalton, 259 Va. 249, 253, 524 S.E.2d 860, 862
(2000); see also U.S. Const. amend. XIV; Va. Const. art. 1, § 8.
Our Supreme Court determined that the crime of being an
accessory after the fact is not a lesser-included offense of the
crime of murder.
There are three elements to the crime of
being an accessory after the fact to a
felony. First, the felony must be complete.
Second, the accused must know that the felon
is guilty. Third, the accused must receive,
relieve, comfort, or assist the felon. It
is essential that the accused, at the time
he assists or comforts the felon, has
notice, direct or implied, that the felon
committed the crime. Manley v.
Commonwealth, 222 Va. 642, 645, 283 S.E.2d
207, 208 (1981); Wren v. Commonwealth, 67
Va. (26 Gratt.) 952, 956 (1875).
While convicting an accused of being an
accessory after the fact requires proof that
the accused provided assistance to a person
with knowledge that the person was guilty of
a completed felony, no such proof is
required to convict an accused of murder.
Thus, the crime of being an accessory after
the fact contains an element that the crime
of murder, the charged offense in the
- 13 -
present case, does not contain. Therefore,
the crime of being an accessory after the
fact is not a lesser-included offense of the
crime of murder.
Dalton, 259 Va. at 253-54, 524 S.E.2d at 862-63.
"[B]efore a defendant can be tried and convicted of being
an accessory after the fact, he must be charged with that
offense. Unless such a charge is specifically made, neither the
Commonwealth nor an accused is entitled to an
accessory-after-the-fact instruction." Id. at 255, 524 S.E.2d
at 863. Paxton was not charged with the crime of being an
accessory after the fact to the crime of murder. To the
contrary, he was charged with first-degree murder.
Consequently, Paxton was not entitled to an
accessory-after-the-fact instruction, and the trial court did
not err in refusing to instruct the jury on that principle.
IV. CLARIFICATION OF JURY QUESTION
Paxton next argues that the trial court erred in not
clarifying Instruction 7 regarding concert of action and
Instruction 13 regarding principal in the second degree when the
jury requested clarification. We disagree. Rule 5A:18 states
in pertinent part:
No ruling of the trial court . . . will be
considered as a basis for reversal unless
the objection was stated together with the
grounds therefor at the time of the ruling,
except for good cause shown or to enable the
Court of Appeals to attain the ends of
justice.
- 14 -
At trial, the jury asked the court to clarify Instructions
7 and 13. When the court asked the Commonwealth and defense
counsel if either objected to it telling the jury that the two
instructions stated the law applicable to the case and to read
them again carefully, Paxton's attorney unequivocally waived any
objection. He stated, "I don't have any objection." He further
informed the trial court that "any comment or editorial from
counsel at this point would do more harm than good. We've
argued these instructions at length. It's up to the jurors now
to sort them out as best they can . . . ."
Paxton, therefore, waived any objection he may have
possessed and is barred from raising this issue on appeal.
Moreover, the record does not reflect any reason to invoke the
good cause or ends of justice exceptions to Rule 5A:18.
V. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
When the sufficiency of the evidence is
challenged on appeal, it is well established
that we must view the evidence in the light
most favorable to the Commonwealth, granting
to it all reasonable inferences fairly
deducible therefrom. The conviction will be
disturbed only if plainly wrong or without
evidence to support it.
Jones v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 566, 572, 414 S.E.2d 193, 196
(1992).
Paxton argues lastly that the evidence was insufficient to
convict him of the offenses for which he was charged. He
contends that there was no direct evidence to link him to the
- 15 -
crime committed. From the evidence, the jury could properly
infer that Paxton agreed to assist Thrower in the attempted
robbery of Washington.
Concert of action is defined as
an "action that has been planned, arranged,
adjusted, agreed on and settled between the
parties acting together pursuant to some
design or scheme." Rollston v.
Commonwealth, 11 Va. App. 535, 542, 399
S.E.2d 823, 827 (1991) (quoting Black's Law
Dictionary 262 (5th ed. 1979)). All
participants in such planned enterprises may
be held accountable for incidental crimes
committed by another participant during the
enterprise even though not originally or
specifically designed.
Berkeley v. Commonwealth, 19 Va. App. 279, 283, 451 S.E.2d 41,
43 (1994). Thrower threatened to return to 3101 Garland Avenue
with his "boys" and rob Washington. Approximately an hour
later, he returned with an AK-74 assault rifle and three
accomplices. Thrower entered the front of the house while the
three accomplices forced entry into the rear of the house.
Gunfire erupted, wounding Brinkley and killing two-year-old
Kayla.
Following the shootings, the police collected evidence from
the crime scene as well as Thrower's vehicle. Blood was
discovered on the back porch of the apartment. Additional blood
was found on a rubber hose in the alleyway and on a Timberland
boot located in Thrower's vehicle. Paxton was treated at the
hospital late that evening for a gunshot wound to his foot.
- 16 -
Despite denials, DNA analysis identified Paxton as the
contributor of those blood samples, thus placing him on the back
porch during the shooting as well as in Thrower's Cadillac.
In addition to the blood evidence, other evidence was also
collected. The police conducted a gunshot residue test on
Paxton and found primer residue on his hand. Furthermore,
Paxton's own written statement placed him at the scene. A
letter from Paxton, addressed to Thrower, was intercepted. The
letter indicated that a witness had seen Paxton on the back
porch during the shooting. As a result, he suggested testimony
to explain the events of that evening.
Based on the evidence, the jury could conclude that Paxton
agreed to assist Thrower in robbing Washington and was one of
the men who entered the rear of the apartment during the
shootings. Although the shootings may not have been part of the
original plan, since Paxton participated in the planned
enterprise he may be held accountable for the incidental crimes.
Berkley, 19 Va. App. at 283, 451 S.E.2d at 43. Therefore, the
evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
Paxton committed the charged offenses.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
- 17 -