Carter v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 01 November 2016 |
| Docket Number | Record No. 0048-16-3 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Virginia |
| Parties | TIMOTHY RAYMOND CARTER v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA |
UNPUBLISHED
Present: Judges Humphreys, AtLee and Senior Judge Clements
Argued at Lexington, Virginia
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LEE COUNTY
Timothy W. McAfee (Kristen N. McAfee, on briefs), for appellant.
Benjamin H. Katz, Assistant Attorney General (Mark R. Herring, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Timothy Raymond Carter ("Carter") appeals the November 9, 2015 decision of the Circuit Court of Lee County (the "trial court") convicting Carter of second-degree murder and the use of a firearm in the commission of murder. Carter claims the trial court erred in denying his motions for a mistrial and a new trial based on attorney misconduct, failing to give proper jury instructions, declaring a witness hostile and adverse, improperly admitting evidence of prior inconsistent statements and failing to give a curative instruction, and his motion to suppress the evidence. Additionally, Carter asserts the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions.
Carter first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. "Under well-settled principles of appellate review, [this Court] consider[s] the evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party below." Smallwood v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 625, 629, 688 S.E.2d 154, 156 (2009) (quoting Bolden v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 144,148, 654 S.E.2d 584, 586 (2008)). "This principle requires this Court 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.'" Beck v. Commonwealth, 66 Va. App. 259, 262, 784 S.E.2d 310, 311 (2016) (quoting Parks v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 492, 498, 270 S.E.2d 755, 759 (1980)). When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, "[t]his Court 'must examine the evidence that supports the conviction and allow the conviction to stand unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.'" Commonwealth v. McNeal, 282 Va. 16, 20, 710 S.E.2d 733, 735 (2011) (quoting Vincent v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 648, 652, 668 S.E.2d 137, 139-40 (2008)).
"It is the prerogative of the trier of fact 'to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.'" Sierra v. Commonwealth, 59 Va. App. 770, 776, 722 S.E.2d 656, 658 (2012) (quoting Brown v. Commonwealth, 56 Va. App. 178, 185, 692 S.E.2d 271, 274 (2010)). This Court does "not ask whether we, as appellate judges, believe 'the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Thomas v. Commonwealth, 48 Va. App. 605, 608, 633 S.E.2d 229, 231 (2006) (quoting Stevens v. Commonwealth, 46 Va. App. 234, 249, 616 S.E.2d 754, 761 (2005) (en banc)). Rather, we ask only whether "any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Stevens, 46 Va. App. at 249, 616 S.E.2d at 761. This Court's deference to the fact finder "applies not only to findings of fact, but also to any reasonable and justified inferences the fact-finder may have drawn from the facts proved." Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676, 701 S.E.2d 61, 63-64 (2010). "A factfinder's resolution of conflicting facts, as well as competing inferences, receives 'the highest degree of appellate deference.'" Coleman v. Commonwealth, 52 Va. App. 19, 23 n.2, 660 S.E.2d 687, 689 n.2 (2008) (quoting Thomas, 48 Va. App. at 608, 633 S.E.2d at 231).
It is well established that "the reasonable-hypothesis principle is not a discrete rule unto itself." Haskins v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 1, 8-9, 602 S.E.2d 402, 405 (2004). "The statement that circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable theory of innocence is simply another way of stating that the Commonwealth has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Hudson, 265 Va. 505, 513, 578 S.E.2d 781, 785 (2003).1 Thus, the principle "does not add to the burden of proof placed upon the Commonwealth in a criminal case." Id. It merely "reiterates the standard applicable to every criminal case." Pease v. Commonwealth, 39 Va. App. 342, 360, 573 S.E.2d 272, 280 (2002) (en banc) (quoting Cook v. Commonwealth, 226 Va. 427, 433, 309 S.E.2d 325, 329 (1983)).
Further, "[w]hether an alternate hypothesis of innocence is reasonable is a question of fact and, therefore, is binding on appeal unless plainly wrong." Wood v. Commonwealth, 57 Va. App. 286, 306, 701 S.E.2d 810, 819 (2010). Miles v. Commonwealth, 205 Va. 462, 467, 138 S.E.2d 22, 27 (1964). "The credibility of the witnesses and the weight accorded theevidence are matters solely for the fact finder who has the opportunity to see and hear that evidence as it is presented." Wood, 57 Va. App. at 306-07, 701 S.E.2d at 820 (quoting Sandoval v. Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 133, 138, 455 S.E.2d 730, 732 (1995)).
Carter contends that the Commonwealth failed to exclude his reasonable hypothesis of innocence—specifically that his wife Amy Jeanette Carter's ("Amy") death by a single gunshot wound to the neck was the result of a suicide. However, despite Carter's argument that the weight of the physical and forensic evidence disproves that he murdered Amy and supports a finding of suicide because any other conclusion would be entirely inconsistent with the evidence, the fact finder was not required to accept Carter's story. Simply put, Carter's arguments on appeal fail to afford the appropriate deference to the jury's findings of fact.
In this case, Carter did not testify. Thus, the only evidence of his actions was derived from statements Carter provided to law enforcement officers. In those statements, Carter attempted to characterize Amy's death as a suicide that he heroically tried to stop. Yet, Carter's timeline of events surrounding Amy's death contrasted with the testimony of both Christina and Scott Alford and his mother, Reba Carter ("Reba"). Carter claimed that he went directly to his parents' house after Amy's death, which he alleged occurred around noon. However, Reba testified that Carter arrived at her house around 5:00 p.m. Then, at 5:21 p.m., Reba called the local authorities to report Amy's death.
Moreover, Carter claimed to have injured the webbing of his left hand between the thumb and forefinger by jamming it into the hammer area of the .357 revolver used in Amy's death. According to Carter, he attempted to stop the hammer from hitting the firing pin. However, Dr. John Daniel ("Dr. Daniel"), a forensic pathologist, explained that the firing pin on the .357 revolver used did not have a sharp point attached to the hammer and that the firing pin was internal. Additionally, the laboratory analysis of the .357 revolver did not yield any evidence ofCarter's DNA in the hammer area. Furthermore, Carter gave a contradictory explanation of his injury to both his son, D.C., and the nursing staff at the hospital when he explained the injury was from a lawn mower blade. The laboratory analysis further revealed that Carter's DNA was on the revolver's grip, in combination with Amy's DNA.
As in Hudson, the jury was entitled to evaluate Carter's "theory of innocence upon consideration of all the evidence and the reasonable inferences that flow from that evidence." 265 Va. at 517, 578 S.E.2d at 787. The jury was fully within its discretion when it found, based on the evidence presented at trial, that the evidence from the crime scene and the ensuing investigation was inconsistent with Carter's theory of innocence and with his own statements to police. Furthermore, based upon the record before us, this Court cannot say that the jury's conclusion that Carter committed second-degree murder and used a firearm in the commission thereof was "plainly wrong or without evidence to support it." Hickson v. Commonwealth, 258 Va. 383, 387, 520 S.E.2d 643, 645 (1999). Therefore, the trial court did not err in finding the evidence sufficient to convict Carter of second-degree murder and the use of a firearm in the commission of murder.
Carter argues that he was deprived of his constitutional right to confront his accuser. "The Supreme Court 'follow[s] the general rule that error arising from an improper question or improper conduct of counsel may usually be cured by prompt and decisive action of the trial court without granting a motion for a mistrial.'" Landeck v. Commonwealth, 59 Va. App. 744, 756, 722 S.E.2d 643, 649 (2012) (quoting Black v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 277, 286, 288 S.E.2d 449, 454 (1982)). "But whether the conduct was prejudicial is basically a question of fact to be determined in light of all the circumstances in each particular case." Id. at 755, 722 S.E.2d at 649 (internal citations and quotations omitted). A trial court's calculation concerning thenecessity of a mistrial "must be made in light of all the circumstances in the case, including whether the jury was given a cautionary instruction regarding any improper remark or question." Lewis v. Commonwealth, 269 Va. 209, 214, 608 S.E.2d 907, 910 (2005). The standard for reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion for a mistrial is well established:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial