McQuay John Kiah v. Commonwealth

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Baker, Bray and Senior Judge Hodges
Argued at Norfolk, Virginia
McQUAY JOHN KIAH
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 2506-95-1 BY JUDGE JOSEPH E. BAKER
NOVEMBER 5, 1996
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK
Luther C. Edmonds, Judge
Wesley A. Murphy for appellant.
Leah A. Darron, Assistant Attorney General
(James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on
brief), for appellee.
McQuay John Kiah (appellant) appeals from his bench trial
convictions for malicious wounding, threatening to kill his wife,
and assaulting his eight-and-one-half-month-old son in violation
of Code § 18.2-57.2. As the parties are familiar with the facts,
we recite only those necessary to an understanding of this
opinion. Upon familiar principles, we state the evidence in the
light most favorable to the Commonwealth, granting to it all
reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. Higginbotham
v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 349, 352, 218 S.E.2d 534, 537 (1975).
Appellant and Mary Hoskins (Hoskins) were married and lived
together with their eight-and-one-half-month-old son (the baby)
on the first floor of a home co-owned by appellant and his
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
mother. Tenants rented the rooms on the second floor of the
house.
On Sunday morning, May 7, 1995, appellant struck Hoskins in
the face. Hoskins tried to flee the room with the baby in her
arms as appellant grabbed a knife and repeatedly stated, "I'm
going to kill you, you Bitch." Hoskins screamed for help and ran
up the steps toward a neighbor's apartment. Appellant grabbed
her from behind, and she fell down the steps with the baby in her
arms. Hoskins later determined that the baby had a black eye,
bruised ribs, and was bleeding from his mouth.
A neighbor took the baby from Hoskins. When Hoskins
returned downstairs, appellant repeatedly kicked Hoskins in the
stomach while he continued to state, "I'm going to kill you, you
whore, you slut, you bitch . . . . " Appellant grabbed Hoskins
and threw her out the door, causing her to strike her head and
shoulder on the concrete porch. Thereafter, appellant entered
his minivan and tried to run over Hoskins.
Police Officer Sugars (Sugars) responded to a call and
arrived at the scene to find appellant proceeding to his vehicle
which was on the grass. Sugars watched him drive across the
grass and down the sidewalk. Sugars ordered appellant to stop,
but he refused until his path was blocked by another vehicle.
Sugars asked what was the problem and appellant responded, "Fuck
you. You don't have anything to do with this. I kicked my
wife's ass. So what. What are you going to do about it?"
- 2 -
Appellant then moved toward his wife. Sugars intervened and
handcuffed appellant to subdue him.
Appellant testified that his actions were only to repel
Hoskins' assault on him with a knife. He denied Sugars'
testimony and offered a witness to support his claim. The trial
court rejected the defense testimony.
Hoskins testified that her skull was fractured which caused
swelling, blackouts, and nausea. She said she sustained a
sprained or broken ankle, a dislocated shoulder, bruised ribs,
torn stomach muscles, and bruised kidneys. Initially, she sought
treatment for her injuries at Sentara Bayside Hospital.
On cross-examination, over the Commonwealth's objection, the
defense was allowed to ask Hoskins to testify from her Sentara
Bayside Hospital records. When asked by the defense why the
doctor at Sentara Bayside Hospital saw none of Hoskins' alleged
injuries, Hoskins responded that there were three different
doctors who saw her, that appellant's counsel was referring to
only one doctor's report, and that counsel did not have all of
her records.
On redirect, Hoskins testified that she immediately left
town after the beating, to live in Kentucky. She stated that
because she was experiencing blackouts and dizziness she went to
a hospital in Kentucky on May 18 and 26, 1995. Appellant
objected to the Kentucky medical records introduced by the
Commonwealth because they were photocopies, not originals or
- 3 -
certified copies, and because the records had been in the
possession of Hoskins and may have been altered. The trial court
admitted the copies of the Kentucky records. Appellant contends
that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting those
records and that their admission was not harmless. We have
reviewed the Kentucky records and find that the vast majority of
information purportedly contained therein is illegible.
Accordingly, we cannot assign any reasonable evidentiary value to
the documents. For that reason, assuming without deciding that
those documents were improperly admitted, such error was harmless
beyond a reasonable doubt.
Appellant further contends that the evidence was
insufficient to support the convictions. We disagree. Viewed in
the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the evidence
clearly supports the trial court's finding that appellant
intentionally assaulted and battered Hoskins and the baby. See
Hargrave v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 436, 437, 201 S.E.2d 597, 598
(1974). The fact finder could reasonably infer from the evidence
that appellant maliciously intended the natural consequences of
his act. Kelly v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 359, 373-75, 382
S.E.2d 270, 278-79 (1989).
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
- 4 -