Henry Earl Jones v. Commonwealth of Virginia

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Willis and Humphreys
Argued at Richmond, Virginia
HENRY EARL JONES
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 0406-99-2 JUDGE ROBERT J. HUMPHREYS
AUGUST 1, 2000
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
Timothy J. Hauler, Judge
John B. Boatwright, III (Boatwright & Linka,
on briefs), for appellant.
Eugene Murphy, Assistant Attorney General
(Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on brief),
for appellee.
Appellant was convicted in a jury trial of the unlawful
wounding of James Howard Jones. He asserts on this appeal that
the trial court erred during the penalty phase of the trial by
allowing into evidence a photograph of injuries received by
someone other than the victim, which were incurred at the same
time and place as the victim was injured in this case. He also
questions the sufficiency of the evidence to support his
conviction. Finding no error, we affirm his conviction.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code
§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.
BACKGROUND
On April 5, 1998 appellant arrived at the home of James
Jones, who is not related to appellant. Appellant's former
girlfriend, Erin Posey, was also present. After his arrival,
appellant got into a dispute with Posey after she told appellant
that she no longer wanted to continue her relationship with him.
All three individuals went into the kitchen where appellant took
a "butcher's" knife from a drawer. Appellant tried to "get to"
Posey and chased her around the kitchen table. As James Jones
approached appellant while talking to him, appellant swung the
knife, slashing James Jones' neck. Appellant then said, "Look
what you made me do." James Jones went to the bathroom to
examine his wound, and while he was there, appellant slashed
Posey's neck. The police recovered a bloody knife at the scene.
During the guilt phase of his trial, appellant testified
that he picked up the knife to defend himself because Posey
already had a knife. He further testified that he did not mean
to cut anyone and that he accidentally cut James Jones as he
turned "on a reflex."
During the penalty phase of his trial, appellant testified
on direct examination that, "This is not something I meant to
happen. I grabbed the knife only to protect myself . . . but I
didn't grab the knife to cut James or anyone else."
On cross-examination, the prosecutor showed appellant a
photograph depicting the wounds suffered by Posey. In the
- 2 -
course of the cross-examination, appellant admitted that the
photograph depicted two wounds rather than one. The prosecutor
then moved for the admission of the photograph, and counsel for
appellant objected on the grounds that the photograph was
irrelevant, inflammatory and prejudicial. The trial court
overruled the objection and admitted the photograph into
evidence as an exhibit.
ANALYSIS
I. Admission of the Photograph in the Penalty Phase
The procedure for the conduct of the sentencing phase of a
non-capital felony trial is contained in Code § 19.2-295.1,
which provides that the defendant may introduce "relevant,
admissible evidence related to punishment." In summary, this
section prohibits the Commonwealth from offering into evidence
more than certified copies of criminal convictions and permits
the defendant to introduce any evidence relevant to the issue of
punishment. In the event that the defendant offers evidence on
the issue of punishment, the Commonwealth may offer "relevant,
admissible evidence in rebuttal." Id.
We have repeatedly held that the admissibility of evidence
is within the broad discretion of the trial court, and a ruling
will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of an abuse of
discretion. See Brown v. Commonwealth, 21 Va. App. 552, 555,
466 S.E.2d 116, 117 (1996). "Evidence which 'tends to cast any
light upon the subject of the inquiry' is relevant." Cash v.
- 3 -
Commonwealth, 5 Va. App. 506, 510, 364 S.E.2d 769, 771 (1988)
(citation omitted).
When appellant offered evidence in mitigation through his
testimony that he did not intend to cut "James or anyone else,"
he put his intent or lack thereof in issue as it might bear on
the determination of an appropriate sentence for his crime. The
photograph then became relevant evidence to rebut this evidence
by depicting both the number of wounds and their severity. We
also note that the Commonwealth on cross-examination had the
following colloquy with appellant:
[COMMONWEALTH]: Sir, you made a statement
that you didn't grab the knife to cut James
or anyone else, isn’t that what you just
said?
[APPELLANT]: Yes.
[COMMONWEALTH]: But on that day, April 5th,
you not only cut James Jones you cut Erin
Posey; isn't that right?
[APPELLANT]: Yes.
[COMMONWEALTH]: You put a seven inch gash
from that knife on her neck; isn't that
right?
[APPELLANT]: Yes.
[COMMONWEALTH]: And you almost severed part
of her ear; isn't that correct?
[APPELLANT]: I don't know about that, but I
believe so.
Appellant's counsel did not object to this line of
questioning. Photographs are generally held to be admissible to
illustrate the testimony of a witness. See Saunders v.
- 4 -
Commonwealth, 1 Va. App. 396, 398, 339 S.E.2d 550, 552 (1986).
We hold, therefore, that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in admitting the photograph into evidence.
II. Sufficiency of the Evidence
When the sufficiency of the evidence to convict is
challenged, "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).
The jury believed the testimony of the Commonwealth's
witnesses and necessarily rejected appellant's contention that
the injury to James Jones was the result of an accident. "The
credibility of 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).
The testimony of the Commonwealth's witnesses was competent and
not inherently incredible. From their testimony, the jury could
infer beyond a reasonable doubt, that appellant intended to
maim, disfigure, disable or kill James Jones when he slashed
James Jones' neck with a knife.
Therefore, we find that the evidence was sufficient as a
matter of law to support a conviction for unlawful wounding.
Affirmed.
- 5 -