Timothy Leon Jones v. Commonwealth of Virginia ( 2002 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Clements and Senior Judge Coleman
Argued at Richmond, Virginia
TIMOTHY LEON JONES
MEMORANDUM OPINION ∗ BY
v. Record No. 0367-01-2 JUDGE SAM W. COLEMAN III
JUNE 25, 2002
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
James B. Wilkinson, Judge
John A. Rockecharlie (Bowen, Bryant,
Champlin & Carr, on brief), for appellant.
John H. McLees, Jr., Senior Assistant
Attorney General (Randolph A. Beales,
Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Timothy Leon Jones, appellant, appeals his convictions of
second-degree murder, in violation of Code § 18.2-32, robbery,
in violation of Code § 18.2-58, and two counts of use of a
firearm in the commission of felonies, in violation of Code
§ 18.2-53.1. Appellant raises three issues on appeal: (1)
whether the trial court abused its discretion by commenting to
the jury on the strength of the Commonwealth's evidence; (2)
whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the
Commonwealth to present evidence of other crimes; and (3)
whether the Commonwealth proved appellant's guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt.
∗
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
We find that the trial court improperly commented to the
jury on the quality and sufficiency of the Commonwealth's
evidence to prove a robbery. Accordingly, we reverse the
convictions of robbery and use of a firearm in the commission of
robbery and remand those matters to the circuit court for
retrial if the Commonwealth be so advised. We further find that
the trial court did not err by allowing the introduction of
evidence of other crimes committed by Jones. Furthermore, we
find the evidence sufficient to support Jones' convictions for
second-degree murder and use of a firearm in the commission of
murder, and we affirm those convictions.
BACKGROUND
"On appeal, 'we review the evidence in the light most
favorable to the Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable
inferences fairly deducible therefrom.'" Archer v. Commonwealth,
26 Va. App. 1, 11, 492 S.E.2d 826, 831 (1997) (citation omitted).
"The credibility of the witnesses and the weight accorded the
evidence are matters solely for the fact finder who has the
opportunity to see and hear that evidence as it is presented."
Sandoval v. Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 133, 138, 455 S.E.2d 730,
732 (1995). "In its role of judging witness credibility, the
fact finder is entitled to disbelieve the self-serving testimony
of the accused and to conclude that the accused is lying to
conceal his guilt." Marable v. Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 505,
509-10, 500 S.E.2d 233, 235 (1998). The trier of fact is not
designated for publication.
- 2 -
required to accept a party's evidence in its entirety, Barrett v.
Commonwealth, 231 Va. 102, 107, 341 S.E.2d 190, 193 (1986), but
is free to believe and disbelieve in part or in whole the
testimony of any witness, Rollston v. Commonwealth, 11 Va. App.
535, 547, 399 S.E.2d 823, 830 (1991).
In this light, the evidence showed that on May 13, 2000,
Keith Harris loaned appellant a .22 caliber handgun. Later
Harris saw appellant point the weapon at a man named "Pops," who
had approached appellant to buy drugs, and demand money from
"Pops." "Pops" gave appellant his money and walked off without
having purchased drugs. Harris also testified he was selling
drugs that day and at approximately 4:30 a.m., on May 14,
Annabelle Tafolla approached him to buy crack cocaine. Because
Harris only had imitation crack cocaine, he directed her to
appellant. Harris heard appellant tell Tafolla to "give [him]
the fucking money" while appellant pointed the same gun at her.
When Tafolla did not immediately comply, appellant shot at her.
Tafolla began to run but then she stopped and turned and gave
appellant her money. She collapsed in the street a short
distance away, where she died from multiple gunshot wounds from a
.22 caliber handgun.
As to the other crimes evidence, James Yellardy testified
that on the evening of May 13, appellant came to his home, and
asked for money. Yellardy replied he did not have any money.
Appellant left, but returned later that night and pointed a gun
at him and demanded money. Yellardy still claimed not to have
any money, and appellant's girlfriend, Adeline Coleman, convinced
appellant to leave without further incident.
- 3 -
Coleman testified and corroborated Yellardy's account of the
incident involving Yellardy. She also recounted that thereafter
she and appellant went to her home and smoked crack cocaine and
drank beer. Appellant wanted more crack cocaine and told Coleman
he was going to look for some, although he only had seven
dollars. A few minutes after appellant left, Coleman followed
him. She saw appellant, Harris and Tafolla together. It appeared
that appellant and Tafolla were arguing and that Tafolla would
not give appellant money. Coleman then saw appellant hit Tafolla
and Tafolla fell to the ground. Although she heard gunshots, she
did not see who had or was firing the gun.
Coleman ran back to her home. Shortly thereafter, appellant
arrived at Coleman's home and asked her to get him out of the
neighborhood. Coleman arranged for her daughter Yolanda to give
them a ride. Yolanda drove them to another neighborhood in
Richmond. On the way there appellant told Coleman's other
daughter when she returned home to look under Coleman's bed for
something hidden there. When the daughter returned home she
found between the mattresses a handgun, which later was
determined to be the murder weapon.
At trial, appellant testified that it was Harris who had the
weapon and shot Tafolla. Appellant claimed Harris came to
Coleman's house and hid the gun. Appellant testified the
witnesses, including himself, were afraid of Harris, which
explained why the Commonwealth's witnesses had testified
untruthfully at trial and why appellant had lied to his attorney
in claiming an alibi.
- 4 -
During jury deliberations, the jury inquired whether
appellant could be convicted of robbery when the jurors did not
recall any evidence of appellant taking any money from Tafolla.
The trial judge responded there was "ample evidence as to that
point, if you believe it. If you don't believe it then there is
no evidence heard. But, if you believe it then there is ample
evidence." Soon thereafter the jury returned with guilty
verdicts on all counts, including the charges of robbery and use
of a firearm in the commission of robbery. The robbery verdict
form reflected at some point the jury had filled out the "not
guilty" verdict but had changed it to a "guilty" verdict.
ANALYSIS
Judge's Comments
"[I]n the trial of a criminal case it is of great
importance that the court leave to the jury, exclusively, the
consideration of the facts." Johnson v. Commonwealth, 193 Va.
502, 505, 69 S.E.2d 340, 341 (1952).
The high official position of the trial
judge in a criminal case gives great weight,
with the jury, to his words and conduct, and
it is incumbent upon him to guard against
any manifestation of his opinion either upon
the weight of the evidence or the
credibility of the witnesses. "All
expressions of opinions, or comments, or
remarks, upon the evidence, which have a
tendency to intimate the bias of the court
with respect to the character or weight of
the testimony, particularly in criminal
cases, are watched with extreme jealousy and
generally considered as invasions of the
province of the jury." He should preside
with impartiality and "not express or
- 5 -
intimate an opinion as to the credibility of
a witness or as to controverted facts."
Mazer v. Commonwealth, 142 Va. 649, 653-54, 128 S.E. 514, 515
(1925) (citations omitted).
"It is well, too, to remember that in
Virginia, it is the duty of the trial judge
to interpret and to apply the law; but it is
the peculiar duty of the jury to evaluate
the evidence. A judge must not express or
indicate by word or deed, an opinion as to
the credibility of a witness or as to the
weight or quality of the evidence. Any
question or act of the judge which may have
a tendency to indicate his thought or belief
with respect to the character of the
evidence is improper, and should be
avoided."
Holober v. Commonwealth, 191 Va. 826, 840, 62 S.E.2d 816, 822
(1951) (citation omitted).
The foreperson indicated the jury did not recall any
evidence of a taking by appellant of currency or anything else
from Annabelle Tafolla. In response, the trial judge reiterated
the jury's right and duty to assess the credibility of the
witnesses by telling them that they were entitled to determine
what evidence to believe or disbelieve. The trial judge did not
instruct the jury that they were to rely on their recollection
of the evidence. The trial judge did not provide them an
opportunity to review the evidence or the record. Instead, the
judge stated unequivocally that "ample" evidence of a taking
existed, if they chose to believe it. The judge's response told
the jury what the judge's assessment was of the quality and
- 6 -
weight of proof as to an essential element of the robbery and
firearm charge at the time the jury was deliberating on the
charges. By so doing, the judge invaded the province of the
jury.
We cannot say that the judge's comments to the jury that
"ample" evidence existed to prove an essential element of two of
the charged offenses was harmless error. Moreover, on the
record, it appears that the judge's comments directly affected
the jury's deliberation and may have caused them to change their
verdict.
The jury's verdict form of "not guilty," at some point in
time, had been signed by the foreman, but when returned to the
court the "guilty" verdict form was signed. It appears,
therefore, the judge's comments in response to the jury's
question influenced the jury's deliberations and deprived
appellant of a fair trial on the robbery and firearm issue.
Such error is not harmless. Accordingly, we reverse and remand
the judgments of conviction for robbery and use of a firearm in
the commission of robbery.
Other Crimes Evidence
"As a rule, evidence of other criminal conduct is
inadmissible . . . . However, evidence of other criminal conduct
is admissible if it tends to prove any relevant element of an
offense charged. The exceptions allow the evidence to be
considered when it tends to prove method, intent, identity, or
- 7 -
criminal agency." Burley v. Commonwealth, 29 Va. App. 140, 144,
510 S.E.2d 265, 267 (1999) (citations omitted). Further,
evidence of other crimes may be admissible to connect a
defendant to a murder weapon. Id. at 145, 510 S.E.2d at 146;
see also Woodfin v. Commonwealth, 236 Va. 89, 372 S.E.2d 377(1988); Tuggle v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 493, 323 S.E.2d 539(1984). Evidence of other criminal acts is also admissible
"where the evidence is connected with or leads up to the offense
for which the accused is on trial . . . [and] where the other
crimes constitute a part of the general scheme of which the
crime charged is a part." Kirkpatrick v. Commonwealth, 211 Va.
269, 272, 176 S.E.2d 802, 805 (1970).
Appellant initially filed notice that he intended to
present evidence of an alibi. At trial, appellant abandoned his
alibi defense and claimed he was present at Tafolla's murder,
but it was Harris who had the gun and shot Tafolla. The
Commonwealth was charged with the duty to prove the essential
element that appellant was the criminal agent who committed the
murder and used a firearm to commit the murder.
The Commonwealth's evidence showed that, hours before the
murder, appellant attempted to rob James Yellardy and did rob
"Pops" of money, at gunpoint with Harris' gun. The evidence of
these other offenses committed by appellant within hours of the
charged offense are relevant in several respects. First, the
evidence of the repeated robberies committed by appellant within
- 8 -
hours of the charged murder proved appellant's general scheme or
plan to rob people at gunpoint of their money to enable
appellant to buy drugs. The evidence tends to prove both motive
and identity which are admissible to show that the appellant
rather than some other person committed the offenses. The other
crimes evidence was highly probative to prove that appellant
rather than Harris committed the crimes and to establish how and
when appellant came into possession of Harris' handgun. The
witnesses identified the murder weapon as the same gun used in
the other robberies committed by the appellant hours before the
murder. Thus, the other crimes evidence also was relevant to
place the murder weapon in appellant's hands, despite his denial
that he killed Tafolla. In summary, the evidence was relevant
and admissible to prove motive, criminal agency, appellant's
general scheme or plan of which the robbery and murder of
Tafolla were a part, and to prove that appellant possessed the
murder weapon shortly before he killed Tafolla. The probative
value of the evidence outweighed any prejudice to appellant.
Therefore, the trial court did not err by allowing the
introduction of evidence concerning other crimes.
Sufficiency of the Evidence
Appellant asserts the evidence was not sufficient to
support the murder and use of a firearm in the commission of
murder convictions because the testimony of the Commonwealth's
witnesses was incredible. "The conclusions of the fact finder on
- 9 -
issues of witness credibility 'may only be disturbed on appeal if
this Court finds that [the] [witnesses'] . . . testimony was
"inherently incredible, or so contrary to human experience as to
render it unworthy of belief."'" Moyer v. Commonwealth, 33 Va.
App. 8, 28, 531 S.E.2d 580, 590 (2000) (en banc) (citation
omitted). The testimony of the Commonwealth's witnesses was not
inherently incredible, nor was their testimony contrary to human
experience. Basically, all of the witnesses testified that
appellant was attempting to obtain money from various people
during a one-day period in order to buy drugs by threatening them
with a .22 caliber handgun that he borrowed from Harris. On the
occasion that he threatened Tafolla, whom he knew had money
because she was there to purchase drugs, appellant shot her when
she refused to part with her money. In particular, Harris
testified he saw appellant point Harris' gun at Tafolla and
demand her money. Harris testified that Tafolla gave appellant
her money after he began shooting her. Tafolla subsequently died
from the gunshot wounds. The evidence was sufficient to support
the convictions of second-degree murder and use of a firearm in
the commission of murder and was not inherently incredible or
contrary to human experience. Although we are reversing and
remanding the robbery and use of a firearm in the commission of
robbery convictions, we address appellant's appeal of the
sufficiency of the evidence as to those charges. For reasons
similar to the above discussion, we hold that the proof of the
offenses was supported by testimony that is sufficient, if
believed by the jury, to prove the offenses beyond a reasonable
doubt.
- 10 -
Accordingly, we affirm the convictions for second-degree
murder and use of a firearm in the commission of murder. We
reverse the convictions for robbery and use of a firearm in the
commission of robbery and remand for a new trial if the
Commonwealth be so advised.
Affirmed in part,
reversed in part,
and remanded.
- 11 -
Benton, J., concurring, in part, and dissenting, in part.
I join in the parts of the opinion styled Background and
Judge's Comment and, therefore, I concur in reversing the
convictions for robbery and use of a firearm in commission of the
robbery. I do not join in the part of the opinion styled Other
Crimes Evidence. The sole disputed issue at trial was whether
Leon Jones or Keith Harris robbed and killed Annabelle Tafolla
after she sought to purchase cocaine from Harris. Based upon
Harris' testimony, the Commonwealth contended Jones was the
perpetrator of the robbery and murder. Jones testified, however,
that Harris was the perpetrator. For the reasons that follow, I
would reverse the murder conviction and remand it also for a new
trial.
In the Commonwealth's case-in-chief, Harris testified he
sold illegal drugs, had been convicted of ten felonies, and often
carried guns. Harris also testified that on May 13, 2000, the
day before the charged murder and robbery, he owned and possessed
the .22 caliber handgun, which was used to murder Tafolla. When
asked if he knew Jones, Harris testified that he had "seen
[Jones] before" and had sold drugs to Jones. Harris also
testified that, on May 13 he gave his .22 caliber handgun to
Jones. He did not testify that he sold the gun to Jones and did
not explain the circumstances in which he gave Jones the gun. He
also did not testify that Jones did not return the gun to him on
the 13th.
Over defense counsel's objection, Harris was permitted to
testify he was with Jones on May 13 when Jones robbed a man using
the gun. Over objection, James Yellardy also was permitted to
- 12 -
testify that at another occasion on May 13 Jones entered his
house, put a gun to his head, and demanded money. He testified
that Jones left without obtaining any money because a friend
intervened. Yellardy did not describe the gun Jones used. The
friend who intervened testified that the revolver looked like the
gun she was shown at trial.
Harris further testified that on May 14 Tafolla approached
him and asked him to sell her cocaine. Although he sells
cocaine, Harris testified that he only had imitation cocaine and
decided not to sell it to her. He admitted he "was planning [to
rip her off]," but testified that, instead, he referred her to
Jones who was standing next to him. Harris testified that Jones
demanded money from Tafolla and then shot her. Harris provided
the only testimony that Tafolla was robbed, that Jones was the
murderer, and that Jones, not Harris, used Harris' gun to rob and
kill Tafolla.
The Commonwealth argued at trial that the evidence of the
robbery and attempted robbery on May 13 was offered to establish
a modus operandi, which would prove the identity of Jones as the
killer. The trial judge agreed and permitted the evidence. On
appeal, the Commonwealth argues that "the prior robbery and
attempted robbery . . . [were] closely and strongly related to
the crimes on trial, and had a strong logical tendency to prove
that it was [Jones] who murdered [the woman], and that he did so
because he found it necessary in order to rob her." The majority
holds that the evidence was admissible to prove identity, a
common scheme or plan, and motive. I disagree.
- 13 -
The general rule regarding the use of "other crimes"
evidence is well established.
Evidence that shows or tends to show a
defendant has committed a prior crime
generally is inadmissible to prove the crime
charged. Such evidence implicating an
accused in other crimes unrelated to the
charged offense is inadmissible because it
may confuse the issues being tried and cause
undue prejudice to the defendant.
* * * * * * *
Further, the admission of such "other
crimes" evidence is prohibited when its only
purpose is to show that the defendant has a
propensity to commit crimes or a particular
type of crime and, therefore, probably
committed the offense for which he is being
tried.
Guill v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. 134, 138-39, 495 S.E.2d 489,
491-92 (1998).
Positing merely that the evidence was offered to prove
identity is an insufficient basis to satisfy the test of
admissibility. "[E]vidence of other crimes . . . is allowed if
relevant to show the perpetrator's identity when some aspects of
the prior crime are so distinctive or idiosyncratic that the fact
finder reasonably could infer that the same person committed both
crimes." Id. at 139, 495 S.E.2d at 491. Here, the evidence
raises no suggestion of distinctive or idiosyncratic patterns of
robbery. Thus, the trial judge erred in admitting the evidence
for that reason.
The majority also posits that the evidence establishes a
common scheme or plan. No evidence established, however, that
the attempted robbery and robbery, which the Commonwealth alleged
- 14 -
occurred the previous day, were linked to a scheme to rob or
shoot Tafolla on May 14. Those other crimes were unconnected to
the robbery of Tafolla and were not necessary to prove the
circumstances surrounding the robbery and murder.
In addition, this evidence of a prior robbery and attempted
robbery had no tendency to prove motive. The Commonwealth's own
evidence proved the motive for the murder was the robbery that
was contemporaneous with it. No evidence tended to prove the
robberies the Commonwealth alleges occurred the previous day were
the motive for either the robbery or the murder on May 14.
The allegation that the evidence was offered to prove
identity, a common scheme or plan, and motive camouflages its
real vice. At its core, this evidence was offered to suggest to
the jury that Jones, not Harris, had a propensity to rob and
that, therefore, the jury should use that factor in deciding to
believe Harris and not Jones. Indeed, the prosecutor argued to
the jury, "one of the most important things for you to judge is
who is telling the truth and who is telling a lie in this case."
Specifically, the prosecutor argued:
[Harris] told you the truth. He gave the
gun to [Jones] earlier. The gun went from
there to robbing [one man], to robbing
[another man], to robbing and killing [the
woman who sought to buy drugs].
The principle is well established that "it is improper to
use evidence that a defendant has committed another crime when it
has 'no connection with the one under investigation . . .
[because those] other acts of criminality . . . are not legally
relevant and should not be [used] to prejudice the defendant or
to create a probability of guilt.'" Id. at 140, 495 S.E.2d at
- 15 -
492 (citation omitted). The evidence proved both men had the gun
on May 13. The prosecutor used the evidence of robberies to
argue, however, that proof that Jones committed a robbery and an
attempted robbery the previous day was the basis for the jury to
conclude that Jones must have killed Tafolla in this instance
because the Commonwealth's evidence proved Jones, and not Harris,
had a pattern of committing robberies.
The prejudicial effect of presenting this evidence to the
jury outweighed any probative value. The Commonwealth's own
evidence proved the motive for the murder was the robbery that
was contemporaneous with it. Harris testified that Jones used
Harris' gun to rob and kill Tafolla. Thus, without the improper
evidence of the alleged robbery and attempted robbery, the
Commonwealth had evidence from which the jury could have
concluded that Jones shot Tafolla in order to obtain money.
Unlike the circumstances in Burley v. Commonwealth, 29 Va.
App. 140, 146-47, 510 S.E.2d 265, 268 (1999), the evidence of the
other crimes did not "inextricably" link the gun to Jones during
the shooting of Tafolla. The evidence proved two people, Harris
and Jones, had the gun the day before the murder. Harris owned
the gun on the previous day and testified that he gave Jones the
gun on May 13. Harris also admitted he was present for the
purpose of selling drugs when Tafolla was shot. Because both
Harris and Jones were present when Tafolla was murdered, proof
that Jones had possession of the gun on May 13 did nothing more
than tend to prove Jones had a propensity to rob. Evidence of
"criminal propensity . . . , is inadmissible because it confuses
one offense with another, unfairly surprises the defendant with a
- 16 -
charge he is unprepared to meet, and tends to reverse his
presumption of innocence of the crime on trial." Meadows v.
Commonwealth, 9 Va. App. 243, 246, 385 S.E.2d 906, 908 (1989).
In addition, proof that suggested by inference that Jones
was a person inclined to commit robberies (and that Harris, the
Commonwealth's witness, was not) tended to distract the jury and
sway the jury toward giving greater credit to Harris' testimony
because "of collateral facts or those incapable of affording any
reasonable . . . inference on the matter in issue." Boggs v.
Commonwealth, 199 Va. 478, 486, 100 S.E.2d 776, 772 (1957).
Harris was a drug dealer whom Tafolla initially approached. He
owned the murder weapon, "hang[s] out with guns a lot," and has
been convicted of ten felonies. Only Harris testified that
Tafolla was robbed. This evidence of other robberies was offered
to deflect the jury from Harris' patently transparent testimony
that he referred the woman to Jones for a drug transaction
because Harris, who had in his possession imitation cocaine to
sell, was too nice to sell Tafolla imitation cocaine. By
allowing this evidence of other crimes, the judge put Jones in
the position of defending "other misconduct and other crimes
. . . for which he was not then on trial." Id. at 488, 100
S.E.2d at 773. I would hold that this evidence violates the
fundamental principle that "the legitimate probative value of
[other crimes] evidence must exceed the incidental prejudice
caused the defendant." Guill, 255 Va. at 139, 495 S.E.2d at 492.
In short, the evidence proved Tafolla was killed by a bullet
from Harris' gun. Only Harris testified that Jones robbed and
killed her. Jones testified that Harris robbed and killed her.
- 17 -
The Commonwealth sought to have the jury resolve this credibility
dispute and conclude that Jones, not Harris, must have been the
killer because Harris testified the woman was robbed by Jones,
who the Commonwealth alleged was an accomplished robber. The
evidence proved only propensity conduct and was impermissibly
offered for that purpose.
For these reasons, I would reverse both convictions and
remand for a new trial.
- 18 -