Griffin v. Commonwealth

78 Va.App. 116

890 S.E.2d 619

Jonathan Brenton GRIFFIN v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia

Record No. 0485-22-4

Court of Appeals of Virginia, Richmond.

August 1, 2023

Heidi Meinzer (Law Office of Heidi Meinzer, PLLC, on briefs), for appellant.

Katherine Quinlan Adelfio, Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Present: Judges Beales, Fulton and Lorish

OPINION BY JUDGE RANDOLPH A. BEALES

Following a jury trial, Jonathan B. Griffin, a former police officer with the City of Alexandria, was convicted of assault and battery for using excessive force against a handcuffed man in his custody on January 27, 2020. On appeal, Griffin contends that his constitutional due process rights were violated when the same investigating officer conducted both the administrative and criminal investigations of the incident. See Garrity v. New Jersey , 385 U.S. 493, 87 S.Ct. 616, 17 L.Ed.2d 562 (1967). Second, he contends that the trial court erred in overruling his Batson challenge to the Commonwealth's use of its peremptory strikes. See Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). Third, he contends that the trial court erred by denying the admission of certain evidence concerning the victim's character.

Fourth, he contends that the trial court did not properly instruct the jury. Finally, he contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he committed assault and battery.

I. BACKGROUND

"In accordance with familiar principles of appellate review, the facts will be stated in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, [as] the prevailing party at trial." Scott v. Commonwealth , 292 Va. 380, 381, 789 S.E.2d 608 (2016).

A. The Incident

In January 2020, Jonathan B. Griffin worked as a police officer for the City of Alexandria and as a residential community officer in the apartment building where James Lenzen lived. On January 27, 2020, Griffin took Lenzen into emergency custody pursuant to his authority as a police officer under Code § 37.2-808(G). ¹ Griffin handcuffed Lenzen's hands behind his back and transported him to INOVA Alexandria Hospital (the "Hospital"). Security video footage from the Hospital emergency room that day was entered into evidence at trial and shows Griffin guiding a compliant Lenzen to the registration desk with a single hand.

Cyd Fields, a Hospital employee, helped to "register [Lenzen] into the [e]mergency [r]oom." The security video footage shows Lenzen standing relatively still near the registration desk while he waited for Griffin and Fields to get him registered. A woman, later identified as Dr. Katherine Lewis, walked down the hall toward them. Although she turned into a patient room before she reached them, Griffin decided to move Lenzen a few steps closer to the registration desk. Seconds later, the security video footage shows that Griffin grabbed Lenzen with both hands and used his right leg to sweep Lenzen's legs out from under him. As a result, Lenzen, whose hands were still handcuffed behind his back, fell face-first onto the hard hospital floor, sustained facial injuries (including a contusion above his right eye and an abrasion to his nose ), and broke his kneecap.

At trial, Kelly Godette (a Hospital employee) testified that he saw Griffin and Lenzen at the registration desk and that he overheard Griffin tell Lenzen "to keep still." Lenzen was "moving back and forth" a little bit but "was not harming anybody." He testified that Griffin then said, "I told you to keep still," and swept Lenzen's legs out from under him. According to Godette, Lenzen had not made any movements toward Dr. Lewis, Godette, or Griffin and had not made any movements that suggested that he was going to run.

Fields (who was standing behind Griffin and Lenzen and was at arm's length from them during the assault) testified that she did not see Lenzen doing anything immediately before the assault and did not hear Lenzen say "anything provoking." She further testified that all she heard Griffin say was "stop or stop resisting. And the next thing I know, he's on the floor." Fields emphasized that she "didn't see him [Lenzen] doing any type of resisting."

Griffin, who numerous individuals stated was generally quite well-regarded as a member of the police force in Alexandria, testified in his own defense. He agreed that Lenzen was initially cooperative while they were standing at the registration desk. Griffin then observed "a doctor moving down the hallway" toward them and claimed that he "asked [Lenzen] to move towards the registration desk" because he "wanted to create space in that hallway." According to Griffin, Lenzen "pulled back and resisted my control of him." Griffin claimed that he tried to calm Lenzen down but was unsuccessful, so he then used "a more authoritative voice and told [Lenzen] to stop resisting." ² According to Griffin, he decided to put Lenzen on the ground because he thought Lenzen "was putting himself in a position where he could assault me." At trial, Griffin admitted, "I didn't react properly" because he had actually intended to use some technique other than a leg-swipe to bring Lenzen to the ground.

Griffin further testified that, at the time of the incident, he was concerned about Lenzen. He knew Lenzen suffered from bipolar disorder. He testified that he was also aware that Lenzen had "made threats to several government installations and had a previous conviction of arson." Griffin also testified that he had heard that Lenzen had assaulted a nurse and a deputy at a mental health hospital in the past and that Lenzen "had physically confronted firefighters" in the past. However, Griffin conceded on cross-examination that, on the day in question, Lenzen never said anything to indicate that he wanted to harm himself or others. Griffin also acknowledged that Lenzen had been searched for weapons before arriving at the Hospital and remained in handcuffs while at the Hospital. Furthermore, Griffin admitted that Lenzen had not made any verbal threats toward Hospital staff and did not indicate that he had tried to bite or spit at anyone in the Hospital.

B. The Investigation

Directly after the incident, Griffin promptly filed a police report and included two attachments—one containing three pictures of Lenzen's injuries and one containing the Hospital security video footage of the incident. Sergeant John East, an internal affairs investigator with the Alexandria Police Department, reviewed Griffin's report and initiated an internal administrative investigation for possible "excessive use of force." As part of the administrative investigation, Sergeant East interviewed Griffin, David Fox (a paramedic with the Alexandria Fire Department), and a number of law enforcement officers. Although Sergeant East initially concluded that Griffin's actions did not rise to "a criminal level," Alexandria Police Chief Mike Brown ordered Sergeant East to initiate a criminal investigation. As part of his criminal investigation, Sergeant East viewed the Hospital surveillance footage of the incident and "went to the hospital and asked around" to find potential witnesses he could interview. After interviewing those witnesses, Sergeant East concluded that criminal charges were warranted.

Before trial, Griffin filed a "Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, to Suppress." The trial court held a hearing on Griffin's motion where Sergeant East testified about the administrative investigation and the criminal investigation he conducted. Sergeant East testified that he understood that Griffin's statements during the administrative investigation were protected under the United States Supreme Court's decision in Garrity and, therefore, could not be considered in his criminal investigation. He also consistently testified that he maintained a wall between both investigations. Furthermore, when he gave his criminal investigation file to the Commonwealth, Sergeant East only included information obtained from the witnesses with whom he spoke, including those at the Hospital. Sergeant East testified that he specifically did not give any of Griffin's protected statements to the Office of the Commonwealth's Attorney.

After hearing Sergeant East's testimony, the trial judge stated, "I just don't think that there's any evidence that any conversation he may have had with Mr. Griffin prompted him to talk to some other witness." The trial court then found that "there's no evidence before the Court that there was anything" derived from Griffin's protected statements. Finally, the trial court assessed Sergeant East's credibility and found that Sergeant East "was very careful not to talk about anything that Mr. Griffin told him." Consequently, the trial court denied Griffin's motion.

C. Voir Dire

The case eventually went to a jury trial. During voir dire , Juror 1 informed the trial court that she knew Juror 21 because their "kids went to elementary school together. And then [Juror 21] was my son's soccer coach in prep week ... [b]ack when we, like we live[d] three blocks away." The prosecutor then asked both Juror 1 and Juror 21 whether, if they served on the jury together, their opinions would unduly influence each other. Juror 21 simply responded, "No," without further elaboration. However, Juror 1 explained, "I'm trying to think carefully. I mean, yes, I know him but it's not going to unduly influence my opinion in any, one way or the other I don't believe."

The prosecutor also asked whether any of the prospective jurors had preconceived biases toward believing the "testimony of a police officer just based on his or her profession alone." Juror 17 stated that he "would probably credit the police officer slightly" more than an average citizen. Next, the prosecutor asked whether any of the prospective jurors had anyone in their lives suffering "from a severe mental illness" because the allegations in this case involved a person with bipolar...