COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Bray, Bumgardner and Senior Judge Hodges
Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia
TIMOTHAEUS MARIKO EDMONDS
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 1087-00-1 JUDGE WILLIAM H. HODGES
MAY 8, 2001
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF CHESAPEAKE
Frederick H. Creekmore, Judge
Stephen C. Mahan for appellant.
Stephen R. McCullough, Assistant Attorney
General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on
brief), for appellee.
Timothaeus Mariko Edmonds, appellant, appeals his conviction
for unlawful wounding. He challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt his criminal agency
and related intent. Defendant further contends that the trial
court erred by failing to acquit because he acted justifiably both
in the defense of himself and others. For the following reasons,
we affirm appellant's conviction.
Sufficiency of the Evidence
"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.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 1, 11, 492 S.E.2d 826, 831 (1997)
(citation omitted).
So viewed, the evidence established that the victim and his
sister, Carlethea Stancil, encountered appellant, a man with whom
the victim had an "all right" relationship, in a Wal-Mart store,
and the two men exchanged greetings. When the victim and Stancil
exited the store, Junius Harvey began "mouthing off" at the victim
in the parking lot. Suddenly, appellant and Nathan Jenkins
"rush[ed] [the victim] from the back," began punching him, and a
struggle ensued. Although masked, the victim could identify
appellant by his clothing, seen moments before while in the store.
Appellant soon broke away from the fight and ran, but the victim
pursued, caught and began to choke him. Stancil, observing
appellant remove a gun from his waist area, shouted, "He's got a
gun," the victim felt something "poke" into his stomach, and
appellant shot the unarmed victim in the pelvis.
At trial, appellant acknowledged seeing the victim at the
Wal-Mart store, but denied involvement in the altercation,
testifying he watched the fight while seated in a nearby car.
The trial judge believed the Commonwealth's evidence,
including the victim's identification of appellant as the
assailant, and rejected appellant's evidence. "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.
- 2 -
Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 133, 138, 455 S.E.2d 730, 732 (1995).
Further, the evidence clearly proved appellant shot the unarmed
victim in the pelvis, conduct sufficient to support an inference
of specific intent to maim, disable, disfigure or kill. Thus,
the Commonwealth's evidence was competent, was not inherently
incredible, and was sufficient to prove the subject conviction
beyond a reasonable doubt.
Self-Defense and Defense of Others Claims
"Self-defense is an affirmative defense which the accused
must prove by introducing sufficient evidence to raise a
reasonable doubt about his guilt." Smith v. Commonwealth, 17
Va. App. 68, 71, 435 S.E.2d 414, 416 (1993). See Foster v.
Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 380, 383, 412 S.E.2d 198, 200 (1991)
(defendant entitled to instruction on defense of others if
supported by evidence in the record). Whether evidence of
self-defense or the defense of others by an accused raises a
reasonable doubt of guilt is a factual finding by the trial
court that will not be disturbed on appeal, unless plainly wrong
or without evidence to support it. See Smith, 17 Va. App. at
71, 435 S.E.2d at 416.
Here, appellant denied involvement in the offense, claiming
he only watched the fray from a car. Nevertheless, appellant
contends the trial judge erroneously failed to acquit because he
acted in self-defense or justifiably in defense of others.
However, such defenses were raised, not by defendant's evidence,
- 3 -
but, rather, the argument of his counsel, urging the fact finder
to draw the inferences necessary to the defenses from the
Commonwealth's evidence. Under such circumstances, the trial
court correctly concluded that appellant did not act in
self-defense or in the defense of others.
Accordingly, we affirm the conviction.
Affirmed.
- 4 -