Fisher v. Com.

Decision Date08 June 1993
Docket NumberNo. 1283-91-1,1283-91-1
Citation16 Va.App. 447,431 S.E.2d 886
PartiesHerbert Garrison FISHER, s/k/a Herbert Garrison Fisher, Jr. v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. Record
CourtVirginia Court of Appeals

Matthew N. Ott, Richmond (Matthew N. Ott, P.C., on briefs), for appellant.

Michael T. Judge, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Mary Sue Terry, Atty. Gen., on brief), for appellee.

Present: BAKER, KOONTZ *, and WILLIS, JJ.

WILLIS, Judge.

On appeal from his jury trial conviction of second degree murder of his wife, Kathryn Ann Youngs Fisher (Kay), Herbert Garrison Fisher contends that the trial court erred (1) when it denied his motions to strike the Commonwealth's evidence and to set aside the jury verdict because the prosecution had failed to prove the corpus delicti, (2) when it denied his motion for a change of venue, but ordered the jury summoned from Lancaster County to trial in Gloucester County, (3) when it failed to ensure that the jury panel list had been made available to counsel forty-eight business hours before trial, (4) when it permitted the prosecution to cross-examine him on matters beyond the scope of direct examination and on matters without any evidentiary foundation, and (5) when it refused to recuse William Shaw, III, the Commonwealth's Attorney, thereby precluding Fisher from calling Mr. Shaw as a witness. We find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

When considering the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal of a criminal conviction, we must view all the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth and accord to the evidence all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. 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) (citations omitted).

Fisher and Kay were married in 1984. They rented a cottage on the home property of Dr. Edward S. Bear abutting the Ware River in Gloucester County. In late fall, 1986, Dr. Bear's fiancee told Fisher that she and Dr. Bear would be out of town New Year's weekend. On December 20, 1986, Fisher and Kay attended Dr. Bear's Christmas party. The Gloucester County Commonwealth's Attorney, William H. Shaw, III, also attended. The fact that the Bears were leaving for New Year's weekend became known to the guests during the party.

At 11:37 p.m. on January 2, 1987, Fisher called 911, reporting that his wife had fallen off their pier. Emergency personnel responded. Fisher told Gloucester Fire and Rescue Squad Captain Harry M. Healy, Jr. that Kay had gone outside to dump a bucket of ashes from the woodstove, but had not returned, and that he thought he had seen her body in the water. One of the rescue workers found a bucket full of ashes in about three feet of water next to the pier. At 12:17 a.m., rescue workers found Kay's body floating in the river, and Sergeant Walker of the Gloucester County Sheriff's Department so informed Fisher. While returning to the pier, the rescue workers held the body alongside the boat. Later, they placed it on the boat's forward deck. Upon arriving at the pier, the rescue workers found no sign of life and Dr. Brown, the local medical examiner, pronounced Kay dead.

While in the Fisher cottage, Officer Bell noticed unfolded laundry on the daybed. He also noticed that the woodstove was clean, the logs inside being only slightly burned. The fire shovel was also clean.

After the emergency personnel left, Fisher asked his friend, Dave Hazzard, to help search around the pier for the bucket. Fisher said that he found Kay's glasses in the water next to the pier. There was testimony that she wore them all the time.

The next day, Fisher told Officers Strigler and Walker that he and Kay had spent the day in Norfolk and had returned to the cottage about 9:30 p.m. The night was cold. Around 10:00 p.m., Kay asked him to build a fire. Kay said that she would clean the ashes out of the stove while he went outside to the woodpile. He returned from the woodpile with wood, built a fire, and watched television. He assumed that Kay had gone outside to dump the ashes from the stove. After thirty to forty-five minutes passed and Kay did not return, he went outside to look for her. Finding nobody at the main residence, he returned to the cottage to get a spotlight and continued his search. Spotting something floating in the water, he drove his truck to the water's edge and shined its headlights on the object. It looked like Kay's jacket, so he returned to the cottage and called 911. Fisher initially stated that Kay was covered by a $10,000 life insurance policy, but upon further questioning, said that the policy might be for $100,000. During the interview, the officers noticed two fresh scratches on Fisher's hands.

An autopsy performed by Dr. Marcella Fierro revealed bruises on Kay's left wrist and hand, her right hand, her upper left thigh, her left knee, her ankles, and the top right side of her head. Dr. Fierro determined that the bruises occurred "prior to or about" the time of death and did not result from ordinary handling of the body or from its resting against objects. She concluded that asphyxia caused Kay's death. She eliminated drowning, crushing, strangulation, laryngospasm (a vocal chord spasm which obstructs the airway), and "dry drowning" (death before or upon entering the water without signs of drowning) as causes of the asphyxia. Dr. Fierro determined that Kay took her last breath and her heart stopped beating before she entered the water.

A second forensic pathologist, Dr. Davis, reviewed the medical evidence and likewise concluded that Kay died of asphyxia. He also eliminated drowning and laryngospasm as causes of death. He eliminated drug overdose, obstruction of the airway by food, and epilepsy as causes of death. Like Dr. Fierro, Dr. Davis concluded that Kay's death occurred prior to her entry into the water.

Dr. Brown, the local medical examiner, testifying on Fisher's behalf, stated that Kay died of asphyxiation resulting from a laryngospasm.

Before the trial began, Fisher moved to recuse the Commonwealth's Attorney William Shaw, III, on the ground that Mr. Shaw's testimony regarding the Bears' New Year's day plans allegedly announced at the Christmas party might contradict Dr. Bear's testimony. The trial court denied this motion. Fisher also moved for a change of venue. The trial court denied this motion also, but granted a change in venire and ordered that the jury be brought in from Lancaster County.

During the trial, Catherine Youngs, Kay's mother, testified that when Fisher visited her in New York on January 3, 1987, he told her that he did not know whether Kay had any life insurance. She testified that when she visited Fisher on the weekend of January 17, 1987, he told her that he "hadn't come across anything" involving any insurance policies. However, on January 16, 1987, Fisher wrote the attorney for Kay's estate, listing five insurance policies totaling $710,000. Approximately two months later, Fisher told Mrs. Youngs that there was only $10,000 insurance.

At trial, Fisher testified that he and Kay did not return home from Norfolk until 10:00 p.m. Once inside, they decided that Fisher, after doing a few chores, would take a bath while Kay finished some laundry. He went outside to get wood while Kay started the fire. Upon his return, he saw Kay busy at the woodstove, apparently removing the ashes. About 10:30 p.m. he went upstairs to bathe and left Kay folding clothes and placing them on the daybed. About 11:00 p.m., he returned downstairs and did not see Kay. He went outside looking for her, but returned inside to put on warmer clothes. He grabbed a spotlight, went back outside, and searched various places. Eventually, he looked out over the water near the pier and saw what appeared to be Kay's coat. He shined his truck lights on the water, but could no longer locate the object. He then tried to use Dr. Bear's dinghy but could not drag it to the shore because it was full of water. He called 911 for help, and then continued to pull the dinghy toward the water.

Dr. Bear testified that the dinghy was upside down when he left for the weekend.

Karen Swisher Castanes, a student at Mary Washington College, testified that she met Fisher in October, 1986 at a meeting in Fredericksburg and joined him for dinner. They later went on an archeological survey of a site in Leesburg. Around December, 1986, Fisher drove Ms. Castanes to Fairfax, where she took an examination. He visited with her at her parents' home in Lynchburg while he conducted another archeological survey. He took her out to dinner in Lynchburg. He bought her a dress for Christmas. He told her that he was interested in her and wanted to continue dating her. He did not tell her that he was married.

Ms. Castanes testified that around January 2, 1987, Fisher called and told her that he was in New York on business. When she returned to school the first week of January, Fisher met her for dinner. In late January or early February, Fisher mentioned, for the first time, that he had been married and that his wife had passed away. At that time he told her that he was falling in love with her. In March, Ms. Castanes heard from a professor that Fisher's wife had just recently drowned. Thereafter, she refused to see him. However, he continued to pursue the relationship, inviting her to his house for spring break, attempting to see her at her parents' home, and approaching her between classes at school.

I. Proof of the Corpus Delicti

At the conclusion of the Commonwealth's evidence, Fisher moved that the evidence be struck and the charges against him dismissed on the ground that the Commonwealth had failed to prove the corpus delicti. The trial court denied that motion. After the jury verdict finding him guilty, Fisher moved, on the same ground, that the verdict be set aside and the charges against him...

To continue reading

Request your trial
70 cases
  • Young v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals
    • July 30, 2019
    ...on a matter presented to a trial court, "there is no ruling for [the appellate court] to review" (quoting Fisher v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 447, 454, 431 S.E.2d 886 (1993) )). Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the record does not reflect that the trial judge refused to consider the ......
  • Ohree v. Com.
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals
    • January 13, 1998
    ...of costs and her motion to set the costs aside, there is no ruling for us to review on appeal. See Fisher v. Commonwealth, 16 Va.App. 447, 454, 431 S.E.2d 886, 890 (1993). Even on the merits, however, Ohree's claim fails. If Virginia's statutory framework regarding the imposition of costs i......
  • Brown v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals
    • May 10, 2022
    ...appellant's argument that this case should have been dismissed for prosecutorial vindictiveness is waived, Fisher v. Commonwealth , 16 Va. App. 447, 454, 431 S.E.2d 886 (1993).III. CONCLUSIONAppellant has not convinced this Court of any reversible error on the trial court's part. First, the......
  • Bailey v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals
    • June 15, 2021
    ...court leaves the appellate court with nothing to review, and thus, waives any arguments raised in the motion); Fisher v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 447, 454, 431 S.E.2d 886 (1993) (concluding that when a litigant fails "to obtain a ruling from the court[,]" he has been "denied nothing by the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • 11.1 Venue and Change of Venue
    • United States
    • Defending Criminal Cases in Virginia (Virginia CLE) Chapter 11 The Trial
    • Invalid date
    ...Commonwealth, 244 Va. 1, 419 S.E.2d 606 (1992); Cressell v. Commonwealth, 32 Va. App. 744, 531 S.E.2d 1 (2000); Fisher v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 447, 431 S.E.2d 886 (1993).[29] Jackson v. Warden, 271 Va. 434, 627 S.E.2d 776 (2006); Thomas v. Commonwealth, 263 Va. 216, 559 S.E.2d 652 (200......
  • 9.14 Venue and Change of Venue
    • United States
    • Virginia Law and Practice: A Handbook for Attorneys (Virginia CLE) Chapter 9 Criminal Procedure in Virginia
    • Invalid date
    ...Commonwealth, 244 Va. 1, 419 S.E.2d 606 (1992); Cressell v. Commonwealth, 32 Va. App. 744, 531 S.E.2d 1 (2000); Fisher v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 447, 431 S.E.2d 886 (1993).[557] Jackson v. Warden, 271 Va. 434, 627 S.E.2d 776 (2006); Thomas v. Commonwealth, 263 Va. 216, 559 S.E.2d 652 (20......
  • 3.2 Civil Practice in the Circuit Courts
    • United States
    • The Virginia Lawyer: A Deskbook for Practitioners (Virginia CLE) Chapter 3 Litigation: Civil and Criminal
    • Invalid date
    ...Va. Code § 8.01-384.[1017] See Appendices 3-15, 3-16, 3-17 (various judgment order forms) (on disc).[1018] Fisher v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 447, 431 S.E.2d 886 (1993). But see Cherry v. Lawson Realty Corp., 295 Va. 369, 373, 812 S.E.2d 775, 777 (2018) (plaintiffs submitted a number of ob......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT