COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judge Annunziata, Senior Judge Duff and Judge Clements ∗
Argued at Alexandria, Virginia
DOMICA CHANTEL WINCKLER
OPINION BY
v. Record No. 1177-99-2 JUDGE ROSEMARIE ANNUNZIATA
JULY 18, 2000
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
Herbert C. Gill, Jr., Judge
D. Gregory Carr (Bowen, Bryant, Champlin &
Carr, on briefs), for appellant.
Robert H. Anderson, III, Assistant Attorney
General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General,
on brief), for appellee.
Domica Winckler appeals from her conviction of capital
murder, arising from the July 27, 1997 robbery and murder of
Stacy Hanna. Winckler contends 1) the trial court erred in
refusing to instruct the jury that to support a conviction for
capital murder, robbery must have been a motivating factor in
the killing of Hanna; and 2) the Commonwealth offered
insufficient evidence to prove capital murder under the theory
of "murder committed in the commission of robbery." We find no
error and affirm.
∗
Judge Jean Harrison Clements took part in the
consideration of this case by designation, pursuant to Code
§ 17.1-400, recodifying Code § 17-116.01.
FACTS
We review the evidence pertinent to a defendant's
challenged jury instruction in the light most favorable to the
defendant. See Martin v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 524, 526,
414 S.E.2d 401, 401 (1992) (en banc). On July 4, 1997, Stacy
Hanna came to the City of Richmond from Lynchburg and moved into
an apartment on Belmont Avenue, which she shared with Dana
Vaughn, Robin Thurkill, Kelly Tibbs, and occasionally Tracy
Bitner. Winckler lived nearby and was part of the social circle
that included Hanna and her apartment mates. These women were
all lesbians. Bitner and Tibbs previously had been romantically
involved but had ended the relationship prior to Hanna's arrival
in Richmond. Soon after Hanna moved into the Belmont Avenue
apartment, she developed a romantic attachment to Tibbs, but
Hanna "ended up liking [Tibbs] more than [Tibbs] liked [Hanna]."
On July 24, 1997, Tibbs and Winckler had a violent altercation
with Hanna, because Tibbs believed Hanna had lied about a
romantic relationship between Tibbs and another individual.
On the afternoon of Saturday, July 26, 1997, Vaughn, Hanna,
and Tibbs met in the Belmont Avenue apartment with Bitner,
Winckler, and Stephanie Cull, another member of Hanna's circle
of friends. Winckler, Tibbs, Bitner, and Cull left in Cull's
car to pick up Thurkill from her job at a local restaurant. On
the way to pick up Thurkill, the women began to complain about
- 2 -
Hanna's recent fabrications concerning Tibbs, and they agreed
that "they were going to kick [Hanna's] butt, teach her a lesson
for lying." Later in the evening, these women, along with Hanna
and Vaughn, attended a party at a friend's home, during which
Vaughn fell ill. The group left the party in Cull's car. Cull
drove the vehicle, while Tibbs and Bitner rode in the front
seat; Hanna, Vaughn, and Winckler rode in the back. They
proceeded to Marsh Field in Chesterfield County and parked next
to a small building. There, all the women exited the car except
for Hanna and Vaughn, who continued to feel ill. Tibbs
eventually returned to the car and remained with Vaughn while
Hanna joined the others, who were standing just a few feet in
front of the vehicle. The women had decided to give Hanna a
"butt kicking" for lying about Tibbs.
Soon after Hanna exited the vehicle and joined Winckler,
Bitner, and Cull, Tibbs also rejoined the group, leaving Vaughn
alone in the car. The women walked to the other side of the
small building, where Tibbs and Winckler began to hit and kick
Hanna. Bitner also joined in the assault. Bitner, Winckler,
and Tibbs began to cut Hanna with razor-bladed box cutters.
Within minutes, Vaughn observed Hanna's back covered with blood.
Vaughn also saw Winckler strike Hanna with a belt and then throw
a cinder block on Hanna as she lay on the ground. The assault
lasted approximately ten minutes, after which Tibbs, Bitner,
- 3 -
Cull, and Winckler returned to the car and drove a "couple [of]
miles" away, leaving Hanna at Marsh Field. When the women
became concerned that Hanna would report the assault, they
returned to Marsh Field. They concluded it was necessary to
kill and "get rid of" Hanna.
Upon returning to Marsh Field, Cull told the other women to
put Hanna in the trunk of the car because Hanna "was going to
get blood everywhere." Winckler and Tibbs did so despite
Hanna's pleas to be allowed to ride in the passenger
compartment. The women drove away from the scene for a second
time, with Hanna striking the interior of the trunk with her
hands. In response to Hanna's banging on the trunk, Cull
stopped the car; Winckler got out and opened the trunk. Hanna
asked to be taken to a telephone so she could call her mother;
Winckler said "no," shut the trunk and got back in the car.
The women continued driving and discussed whether they
should take Hanna to a hospital. Winckler and Bitner opposed
doing so, fearing Hanna would report their actions. Bitner
stated that Hanna's "tongue needed to be cut out" so she could
not report them; Winckler stated that Hanna's "fingers need[ed]
to be cut off" so she could not make a written report. Cull
stopped the car along an unidentified back road. All the women
except Vaughn got out and opened the trunk for a second time.
- 4 -
By this time, Hanna was "bleeding really bad." Winckler
demanded Hanna's rings and watch. Hanna refused at first but
finally complied, asking that she be allowed to keep one ring.
Winckler refused. During this stop, Cull cut Hanna on the leg
with a box cutter and at least one of the women spat on her.
After they sealed Hanna in the trunk again, they drove on.
The group finally arrived at Nash Road, where they got
Hanna out of the trunk and walked her down the deserted road.
Cull cut Hanna on the back with a box cutter, and Hanna fell to
the ground. Bitner, Tibbs, and Winckler dragged her
approximately 100 yards further and there stopped to remove
Hanna's clothes, which belonged to Tibbs. Winckler stabbed
Hanna in the chest with a box cutter and held her in the mud
while Bitner slit Hanna's throat with another box cutter.
Winckler and Bitner returned to the car, Tibbs remaining with
Hanna for a few more minutes. Once back at the car, Bitner
boasted that she had cut Hanna's throat, stuffed mud in her
mouth, and stabbed Hanna "near the heart saying I want your
heart bitch, give me your heart, why won't you die." Winckler
admitted she stabbed Hanna "over and over again" as well, and
Tibbs said she had "stuck a stick" in Hanna's chest. Once the
women returned to the car, they left the scene. As they drove
away, Winckler announced that if any of them reported what had
- 5 -
just happened, "the same thing could happen to them." The women
disposed of Hanna's blood-stained clothes and other evidence in
a trash receptacle near Matchpoint Apartments, then returned to
the Belmont Avenue apartment and cleaned themselves. Tibbs
later told Vaughn that one of them had carved the word "liar" in
Hanna's back.
On Sunday, July 27, 1997, City of Richmond and Chesterfield
County police officers went to the Belmont Avenue apartment to
investigate and later took the women to the Richmond police
department for questioning. Chesterfield County Detective Rick
Mormando interviewed Winckler and taped her statement. During
the interview, Mormando recovered Hanna's watch from Winckler's
wrist, and Winckler admitted taking it from Hanna while Hanna
was in the trunk of Cull's car. Winckler told Mormando that
when she and the other women had opened the trunk for the second
time on the previous night, she told Hanna, whom she described
as "scared sh--less," to "give me your watch, [and] give me your
rings." When asked why she took the watch, Winckler replied, "I
don't know. I just liked it." She stated that Hanna was
physically incapable of resisting when Winckler demanded the
watch and rings. She further stated that Hanna only surrendered
the watch and rings because "she was scared sh—-less that [I
- 6 -
was] going to do something else to her." Winckler told Mormando
that she and the other women had already decided to kill Hanna
when they drove to Nash Road. She also confessed that she
stabbed Hanna in the chest and "tried to push her face in the
mud . . . to suffocate her . . . ."
On January 14, 1998, a jury found Winckler guilty of
robbery, abduction, and capital murder. The jury fixed her
sentence at thirty years incarceration for the robbery
conviction, ten years incarceration for the abduction
conviction, and death for the capital murder conviction. The
trial court set aside the death sentence and imposed a sentence
of imprisonment for life on the capital murder conviction. This
appeal followed.
Winckler contends: 1) the trial court erred by refusing to
instruct the jury that, to convict Winckler of capital murder,
robbery must have been a "motivating factor" for the killing;
and 2) the evidence was insufficient to prove that robbery
motivated Winckler to kill Hanna and the trial court, therefore,
should either have struck the Commonwealth's evidence on the
capital murder charge or set aside Winckler's conviction for
capital murder.
- 7 -
JURY INSTRUCTION ON CAPITAL MURDER
Winckler proffered two jury instructions on capital murder, 1
which the trial court refused. 2 Winckler contends the court's
1
Code § 18.2-31 defines capital murder. The statute
provides, in pertinent part:
The following offenses shall constitute
capital murder, punishable as a Class 1
felony:
* * * * * * *
4. The willful, deliberate and premeditated
killing of any person in the commission of
robbery or attempted robbery.
2
The instructions were as follows:
Instruction A:
The defendant is charged with the crime of
capital murder. The Commonwealth must prove
beyond a reasonable doubt each of the
following elements of that crime:
1. That Stacy Hanna was killed; and
2. That the killing was willful,
deliberate, and premeditated; and
3. That the killing occurred during the
commission of a robbery; and
4. That Domica Winckler killed Stacy Hanna.
If you find from the evidence that the
Commonwealth has proved beyond a reasonable
doubt each of the above elements of the
offense as charged, then you shall find the
defendant guilty and shall not fix the
punishment until your verdict has been
returned and further evidence is heard by
you.
If you find that the Commonwealth has failed
to prove beyond a reasonable doubt any one
or more of the elements of the offense, then
- 8 -
ruling constituted reversible error, arguing that the two
proffered instructions were necessary and proper statements of
applicable law requiring the Commonwealth to prove that robbery
was a motivating factor for the homicide in order to sustain a
conviction of capital murder.
The issues raised on appeal are identical to those in our
recent decision in Tibbs v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 687, 525
S.E.2d 579 (2000), which governs this case. In Tibbs, we held
that to support a capital murder conviction under Code
§ 18.2-31(4), the Commonwealth was not required to prove the
robbery was a motivating factor for the homicide that was
committed. See id. at 705, 525 S.E.2d at 587-88. Rather, a
conviction for capital murder will be sustained on appeal where
"sufficient evidence [is] presented from which the fact finder
can conclude that the killing and robbery were 'interdependent
you shall find the defendant not guilty of
capital murder.
Instruction B:
The [c]ourt instructs the jury that "murder
in the commission of robbery" is a killing
which takes place before, during, or after
the robbery, and is so closely related
thereto in time, place, and causal
connection as to make the killing part of
the same criminal enterprise as the robbery.
The Commonwealth must also prove that the
robbery was a motivating factor for the
killing.
- 9 -
objects of a common criminal design.'" Id. at 706, 525 S.E.2d
at 588 (quoting Edmonds v. Commonwealth, 229 Va. 303, 310, 329
S.E.2d 807, 813, cert. denied, 474 U.S. 975 (1985)).
Based on our decision in Tibbs and the case law which
underlies it, we find that the proposed instructions misstated
the law and that the trial court did not err in refusing to
instruct the jury that robbery must have been a motivating
factor for Hanna's murder.
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE TO PROVE CAPITAL MURDER
"In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence on appeal, 'the
appellate court must examine the evidence and all inferences
reasonably deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to
the Commonwealth, the prevailing party in the trial court.'"
Taylor v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 54, 64, 521 S.E.2d 293, 298
(1999) (en banc) (quoting Commonwealth v. Jenkins, 255 Va. 516,
521, 499 S.E.2d 263, 265 (1998)). We find the evidence
sufficient to support Winckler's conviction of capital murder.
"Murder in the commission of a robbery is a killing which
takes place before, during, or after the robbery and is so
closely related thereto in time, place, and causal connection as
to make the killing part of the same criminal enterprise as the
robbery." George v. Commonwealth, 242 Va. 264, 277-78, 411
S.E.2d 12, 20 (1991) (citations omitted). As noted in Tibbs, to
sustain a conviction for capital murder, "sufficient evidence
- 10 -
must be presented from which the fact finder can conclude that
the killing and robbery were 'interdependent objects of a common
criminal design.'" 31 Va. App. at 706, 525 S.E.2d at 588.
Where the defendant is motivated by the dual purpose of robbing
the victim and committing another felonious act against the
victim that results in death, the robbery and murder are parts
of the same criminal enterprise. See George, 242 Va. at 280,
411 S.E.2d at 21-22. The defendant’s possession of some "fruit
of the robbery" may show "conclusively that the violence against
[the victim] and the trespass to his [property]" are "so closely
related in time, place, and causal connection as to make the
killing, as a matter of law, a part of the same criminal
enterprise [as the robbery]." Briley v. Commonwealth, 221 Va.
532, 544, 273 S.E.2d 48, 55-56 (1980) (citations omitted).
We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth. See Taylor, 31 Va. App. at 64, 521 S.E.2d at 298.
Winckler does not deny her participation in Hanna's murder. She
concedes that she was motivated at the outset of the evening to
cause grievous physical harm to Hanna. In the course of that
evening, as Winckler and her cohorts were transporting the weak
and badly injured Hanna to the site where they planned to kill
her, the group stopped, opened the trunk of the car, and
Winckler demanded that Hanna surrender her watch and jewelry.
Hanna protested, but her will was overborne by Winckler due to
- 11 -
Hanna's state of helplessness and terror. Winckler then sealed
Hanna in the trunk again and the group continued on to the
location where they murdered her.
Hanna's helplessness and intimidation were the direct
result of the initial assault committed by Winckler, Tibbs, and
Bitner. Her helpless and intimidated state was magnified and
exacerbated by her confinement in the trunk of Cull's car, from
which she pleaded to be released. Winckler's demand for and
acquisition of Hanna's property took advantage of Hanna's
extremely debilitated condition, which Winckler had helped to
create. In addition, Winckler and her companions attempted to
conceal their crimes of assault and battery and robbery by
taking the helpless and terrified Hanna to a deserted location
and murdering her. Winckler was found soon after the murder in
possession of a "fruit of the robbery," viz. Hanna's watch.
Possession of the "fruit of the crime," together with the other
evidence in the case, may show "conclusively that the violence
against [the victim] and the trespass to [her property]" were
"so closely related in time, place, and causal connection as to
make the killing, as a matter of law, a part of the same
criminal enterprise [as the robbery]." Briley, 221 Va. at 544,
273 S.E.2d at 55-56.
Based upon this record, we find the jury had sufficient
evidence upon which to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that
- 12 -
the robbery and murder were interdependent objects of a common
criminal design, and, accordingly, to find Winckler guilty of
capital murder. For the reasons stated in this opinion, we
affirm Winckler's conviction.
Affirmed.
- 13 -