COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Baker, Willis and Overton
Argued at Norfolk, Virginia
DEMETRIUS O'NEAL BELL
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 0861-95-2 JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR.
JUNE 11, 1996
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH
Von L. Piersall, Jr., Judge
Dianne G. Ringer, Assistant Public Defender,
for appellant.
Eugene Murphy, Assistant Attorney General
(James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on
brief), for appellee.
On appeal from his jury trial convictions of second degree
murder, attempted murder in the second degree, and two
corresponding firearm charges, Demetrius O'Neal Bell contends (1)
that the trial court erred in refusing his proffered jury
instruction precluding an inference of malice from his possession
of a deadly weapon, (2) that the trial court erred in denying his
motion to set aside the verdict based on nondisclosure of
additional felony convictions of a Commonwealth's witness, and
(3) that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions.
We find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
On August 14, 1994, at approximately 6:30 p.m., Germaine
Green confronted Bell about a gun Bell had borrowed four months
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
earlier and had not returned. Green approached Bell from behind,
punched him in the face, put him in a choke hold, and tried to
break his arm. Green's younger brother, Laron Gist, was present
during this encounter.
Later that same evening, Green and Gist went looking for
Bell. Green had a gun in his back pocket. Seeing a group of six
to eight people, including Bell, standing across the street,
Green and Gist crossed the street toward them. At that time,
they had nothing in their hands. Seeing them, Bell fired one
shot at Gist, killing him. He then fired three or four times at
Green, who turned and ran.
Bell testified that he saw Gist "raising up like that," and
thought Gist had a gun. He also testified that Green fired at
him first and he returned fire. Bell had obtained his weapon
that evening.
The trial court gave the following instructions:
Instruction 4.
The Court instructs the jury that you
may infer malice from the deliberate use of a
deadly weapon unless, from all the evidence,
you have a reasonable doubt as to whether
malice existed.
A "deadly weapon" is any object or
instrument, not a part of the human body,
that is likely to cause death or great bodily
injury because of the manner, and under the
circumstances, in which it is used.
Instruction 19.
The Court instructs the jury that if you
believe that the defendant was without fault
in provoking or bringing on the difficulty,
- 2 -
and if you further believe that the defendant
reasonably feared, under the circumstances as
they appeared to him, that he was in danger
of being killed or that he was in danger of
great bodily harm, then the killing was in
self-defense and you shall find the defendant
not guilty.
Instruction 20.
The Court instructs the jury that if you
believe that the defendant was without fault
in provoking or bringing on the difficulty,
and if you further believe that the defendant
reasonably feared, under the circumstances as
they appeared to him, that he was in danger
of being killed or that he was in danger of
great bodily harm, then the attempted killing
was in self-defense and you shall find the
defendant not guilty.
Instruction 21.
The Court instructs the jury that in
passing upon the danger, if any, to which the
defendant was exposed, you will consider the
circumstances as they reasonably appeared to
the defendant.
The trial court refused the following jury instruction,
which was proffered by Bell:
Instruction D-1.
The Court instructs that when a person
reasonably apprehends that another intends to
attack him for the purpose of killing him or
doing him serious bodily harm, then such
person has a right to arm himself for his own
necessary self-protection, and in such case,
no inference of malice can be drawn from the
fact that he prepared for it.
Contending that the refusal of Instruction D-1 was error,
Bell argues that this denied the jury the opportunity to assess
all the evidence in light of his self-defense claim.
- 3 -
On review of the refusal of a jury instruction, we view the
evidence in the light most favorable to the proponent of the
instruction. Martin v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 524, 526, 414
S.E.2d 401, 401 (1992). However, "'[w]hen granted instructions
fully and fairly cover a principle of law, a trial court does not
abuse its discretion in refusing another instruction relating to
the same legal principle.'" Willis v. Commonwealth, 10 Va. App.
430, 444, 393 S.E.2d 405, 412 (1990) (citation omitted).
Instructions 19 and 20 directed the jury to acquit Bell of
the murder and attempted murder charges if it found that he was
not at fault in bringing on the difficulty and "reasonably
feared" that he was in danger. Instruction 21 directed the jury
to examine the circumstances from Bell's perspective. These
instructions fully covered the self-defense issue. The
Commonwealth made no contention that malice or criminal intent
should be imputed to Bell simply by virtue of his being armed.
Thus, Instruction D-1 addressed no issue in the case.
Bell next contends that the trial court erred in denying his
motion to set aside the verdict when a Commonwealth's witness
testified falsely about his prior record. At trial, Eugene
Ransom admitted that he had been convicted of two habitual
offender offenses, possession of cocaine, possession of heroin,
possession of a firearm, and petit larceny. Subsequent to Bell's
trial in February, 1995, but prior to sentencing, Bell's counsel
discovered that Ransom had pled guilty in December, 1994 to
- 4 -
forgery, uttering, and grand larceny. He had not yet been
sentenced on the charges. The Commonwealth failed to disclose
the December 24 pleas despite a proper motion for discovery.
[T]he Commonwealth must turn over evidence
favorable to an accused that is material to
either guilt or punishment. In United States
v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985), the Court set
forth the test for materiality, finding that
evidence is material, "only if there is a
reasonable probability that, had the evidence
been disclosed to the defense, the result of
the proceeding would have been different."
Id. at 682.
Hughes v. Commonwealth, 18 Va. App. 510, 525, 446 S.E.2d 451,
460-61 (1994) (en banc) (citation omitted). We have held that a
witness becomes a convicted felon, for impeachment purposes, when
a court accepts his voluntary guilty plea. This is true even
though the witness has not yet been sentenced. Fields v.
Commonwealth, 5 Va. App. 229, 234, 361 S.E.2d 359, 362 (1987).
"The non-disclosure of such evidence requires reversal, however,
only if it is material within the meaning of that term as defined
in Bagley." Jeffries v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 21, 28, 365
S.E.2d 773, 777 (1988).
The trial court ruled that the undisclosed additional
convictions could not "in any reasonable likelihood have affected
the judgment of the jury in this case based on all the evidence
that was presented as well as the impeachment evidence that was
in fact presented of this particular witness." The record
supports this holding. Ransom was subjected to substantial
impeachment on his extensive criminal record. No reasonable
- 5 -
likelihood exists that disclosure of his other felony convictions
would have affected the jury's judgment. See Fitzgerald v. Bass,
6 Va. App. 38, 52-55, 366 S.E.2d 615, 623-24 (1988), cert.
denied, 493 U.S. 945 (1989).
Finally, Bell contends that the evidence was insufficient to
support his convictions. In addressing this issue, we view 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). "The jury's verdict will not be
disturbed on appeal unless it is plainly wrong or without
evidence to support it." Traverso v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App.
172, 176, 366 S.E.2d 719, 721 (1988).
It is undisputed that Gist was not armed when he was shot
and killed by Bell. Green testified that he had not drawn his
weapon or fired at Bell when Bell shot Gist. The jury rejected
Bell's claim of self-defense. "The weight which should be given
to evidence and whether the testimony of a witness is credible
are questions which the fact finder must decide." Bridgeman v.
Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 523, 528, 351 S.E.2d 598, 601 (1986).
The testimony of Green and Ransom was competent, was not
inherently incredible, and was sufficient to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that Bell was guilty of second degree murder of
Gist, attempted second degree murder of Green, and the attendant
firearm charges.
- 6 -
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
- 7 -