Alston v. Commonwealth

1

MARQUAY CHRISTOPHER ALSTON, S/K/A MARQUAY CHRISTOPHER LEE ALSTON v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

Record No. 0545-22-3

Court of Appeals of Virginia

May 23, 2023

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RADFORD Josiah T. Showalter Jr., Judge

Robert L. Canard (Robert L. Canard, PLLC, on brief), for appellant.

Jason D. Reed, Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Present: Judges Friedman, Callins and White Argued at Salem Virginia

OPINION BY JUDGE DOMINIQUE A. CALLINS

Following two separate bench trials, the Circuit Court of the City of Radford convicted appellant Marquay Christopher Lee Alston of aggravated malicious wounding in violation of Code § 18.2-51.2, discharging a firearm from a vehicle in violation of Code § 18.2-286.1, and reckless handling of a firearm in violation of Code § 18.2-56.1. Alston asserts that the trial court erred in finding the evidence sufficient to prove aggravated malicious wounding because he did not act with malice and because the victim did not suffer a permanent and significant injury. He also argues that the trial court erred in convicting him of discharging a firearm from a vehicle in violation of Code § 18.2-286.1 because his actions did not cause another person to reasonably fear injury or death. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

BACKGROUND

"Under well-settled principles of appellate review, we consider the evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party below." Vay v. Commonwealth, 67 Va.App. 236, 242 (2017) (quoting Smallwood v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 625, 629 (2009)). "This principle requires us to 'discard the evidence of the accused in conflict with that of the Commonwealth, and regard as true all the credible evidence favorable to the Commonwealth and all fair inferences to be drawn therefrom.'" Id. (quoting Parks v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 492, 498 (1980)).

Alston first stood trial in the Circuit Court of the City of Radford for aggravated malicious wounding. On November 10, 2019, the then seventeen-year-old victim ("J.C.")^[1] attended a party in Radford, Virginia. Alston also attended the party; J.C. and Alston did not know each other before the party. A fight broke out between several women at the party, including Alston's girlfriend, A.S. During the fight, A.S. punched another woman and pulled her to the ground. A.S. continued to punch the woman while she was on the floor. As A.S. punched her, J.C. tried to pull A.S.'s arms away from the woman and deescalate the situation by putting A.S. in a "half bear hug." Alston immediately approached J.C. and punched him in the face. Alston struck J.C. again so that J.C. fell on the floor. J.C. got up, and Alston followed him through the apartment, caught up to him, and continued to punch him. J.C. again was able to get away, but Alston followed J.C. outside and continued to hit him. A bystander video shows Alston punching J.C. repeatedly inside the apartment and after J.C. stepped outside to the apartment's breezeway.^[2] Alston's blows knocked out one of J.C.'s teeth, and five other teeth were "mangled" so that they had to be pulled the next morning. J.C. was in the hospital overnight. Two years after the assault, six of J.C.'s front teeth were still missing because he could not afford to replace them. J.C. testified at trial that he has difficulty eating certain foods and that he "really do[esn't] want to smile" because of his missing teeth.

Radford City Police Officer Robert Stultz interviewed Alston on the night of the fight. Alston admitted that he had punched J.C. in the face three or four times and commented that he thought the knuckles on his right hand may be broken. Officer Stultz also interviewed J.C. at the hospital and saw that J.C.'s "upper and lower lip were extremely swollen" and that J.C. "had obvious teeth that had been dislodged from his gums." Because of his injuries, J.C. had to use a notepad to communicate with the officer.

Alston testified that, a month and a half before the party, A.S. told him that she was pregnant. He went to the party with her because he did not want her to go alone. When Alston saw her and other women fighting, he did not get involved because "[i]t was just - it was females fighting." When J.C. grabbed her, however, Alston "just acted in [A.S.'s] defense" and punched J.C. multiple times. On cross-examination, Alston admitted that A.S. was unhurt during the incident and that she had punched another woman in the face, continued to hit that woman while she was on the ground, and slapped a different woman. Alston also conceded that J.C. did not punch or kick A.S. during the incident and was only attempting to "put like a half bear hug" on her. Alston further admitted that he followed J.C. outside after the initial attack and punched him two more times. When asked if those two final blows were "necessary," Alston replied, "No, sir."

During closing argument, the prosecution argued that J.C.'s injuries were a significant, permanent injury because, even if J.C. had his teeth replaced, false teeth would have to be "drilled and stuck" into his skull. The Commonwealth also argued that there was no evidence J.C. posed a threat to Alston or A.S. and noted that Alston punched J.C. a total of four times, with the last punch coming nearly a minute after the first. Alston responded that J.C.'s injuries were not permanent because fake teeth could have been implanted if J.C. had the resources for the surgery. Alston further argued that he acted in the heat of passion, that he did not intend to knock J.C.'s teeth out, and that he simply thought he had given J.C. a "busted lip."

The trial court found that "no reasonable person would have done [what Alston had] done" and determined that Alston acted with the requisite malicious intent. The trial court also found that J.C. suffered a significant, permanent injury and thus convicted Alston of aggravated malicious wounding.

Alston next stood trial for discharging a firearm in violation of Code § 18.2-286.1; the charge stemmed from Alston's conduct after he left the party. At trial, Joshua Turman testified that he was at the party when the fights broke out and heard gunfire shortly thereafter. Turman testified that he ran toward the bathroom because he did not know "where the shots were landing." Turman and his friend Nathan then attempted to leave. As they drove away, Alston and two of his friends jumped in the backseat. Turman did not testify that he was friends with Alston or his two friends, but stated that, at the time of the party, he knew "of [Alston]." Nathan drove to a convenience store to purchase alcohol, and Alston pressured Turman to buy cigarettes. Nathan then started to drive to another party. Turman knew that Alston had a gun because he had "shot it off" at the first party. During the drive, Turman saw Alston shoot the firearm out the window. When the car drew near "the old industrial park" next to a bridge, Alston fired two shots "toward the mountain near the dam," which was an unoccupied area. The gunshots were not fired near traffic, but they were loud, and Turman testified that he was scared for his "safety and . . . well-being." Throughout the drive, Alston and his friend fired the gun over ten times. Turman did not say anything to Alston about the gunfire because he was "scared shitless." Turman testified that he was so scared that he asked Nathan to drop him off at a Days Inn near his house. Turman walked home from there.

The trial court found that Alston fired a gun out of the window of the motor vehicle in such a manner that Turman "was extremely scared and terrified to the point where he asked to be dropped off at the Days Inn" so he could walk home. Thus, the trial court convicted Alston of discharging a weapon from a moving vehicle in violation of Code § 18.2-286.1.

ANALYSIS

On appeal, Alston challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to prove aggravated malicious wounding in violation of Code § 18.2-51.2 and discharging a firearm from a vehicle in violation of Code § 18.2-286.1. A sufficiency argument challenges the trial court's factual determinations and will only succeed if the trial court's judgment was plainly wrong or unsupported by the evidence. See Vay, 67 Va.App. at 249. When an appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, "[t]he Court does not ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." McGowan v. Commonwealth, 72 Va.App. 513, 521 (2020) (alteration in original) (quoting Secret v Commonwealth, 296 Va. 204, 228 (2018)). Instead, "the relevant question is whether 'any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Vasquez v. Commonwealth, 291 Va. 232, 248 (2016) (quoting Williams v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 190, 193 (2009)). "If there is evidentiary support for the conviction, 'the reviewing court is not permitted to substitute its own judgment, even if its opinion might differ from the conclusions reached by the finder of fact at the trial.'" McGowan, 72 Va.App. at 521 (quoting Chavez v. Commonwealth, 69 Va.App. 149, 161 (2018)).

I. Aggravated Malicious Wounding

If any person maliciously shoots, stabs, cuts or wounds any other person, or by any means causes bodily injury, with the intent to maim, disfigure, disable or kill, he shall be guilty of a Class 2 felony if the victim is thereby severely injured and is caused to suffer permanent and significant physical impairment.

Code § 18.2-51.2(A). Alston argues that when he punched J.C. at the party, he acted in the heat of passion, and therefore the evidence failed to prove he acted with malice. He also alleges that J.C.'s...