Hatcher v. Com., 770563
| Decision Date | 03 March 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 770563,770563 |
| Citation | 218 Va. 811,241 S.E.2d 756 |
| Parties | Joe Lewis HATCHER v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. Record |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
John W. Swezey, Martinsville (Ford & Swezey, Martinsville, on brief), for plaintiff in error.
Thomas D. Bagwell, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Anthony F. Troy, Atty. Gen., on brief), for defendant in error.
Before I'ANSON, C. J., and CARRICO, HARRISON, COCHRAN, HARMAN, and COMPTON, JJ.
I'ANSON, Chief Justice.
Defendant, Joe Lewis Hatcher, was convicted by a jury of murder in the first degree, and he was sentenced in accordance with the jury's verdict to fifty years in the penitentiary.
The sole question presented on this appeal is whether the trial court erred in refusing instruction "M" which would have told the jury that if they believed from the evidence that the defendant was in such a degree of drunkenness as to render him incapable of forming a wilful, deliberate and premeditated purpose or intent to kill the deceased, then they could not find him guilty of murder in the first degree.
The Commonwealth's evidence shows that late in the afternoon of June 16, 1976, Ruby Speaks, defendant, and defendant's father, Philmore Hatcher, met in Mt. Airy, North Carolina. The defendant drove Ruby's automobile to a "nip joint" outside of Mt. Airy because she said she was too drunk to drive. There they each had a drink of whiskey. Defendant then drove the car to Stuart, Patrick County, Virginia. While en route they saw Jesse Robert Hill alongside a road in Patrick County, and they gave him a ride to his home. Upon arrival at Hill's home, they all remained in the car and drank some of the whiskey Hill had with him when he entered the car. They decided they needed some more whiskey; Hill agreed to pay for it and to buy gasoline for the car. On the way to get the whiskey and gas, Hill and defendant engaged in an argument about who was going to pay for the whiskey and gas. Defendant became angry, stopped the car, pulled Hill out, knocked him down in the road, and then proceeded to drive the car over him three or four times. Ruby and Philmore tried to stop the defendant from running over Hill, but defendant told Ruby "to shut (her) mouth and if (she) didn't (she'd) get the same thing." A bloodstained knife was found near decedent's body.
After driving the automobile over decedent's body, defendant drove to Willie Carter's home which was only a short distance away. Defendant told Carter that he had "stobbed" (sic) a man and had run over him with his automobile. Carter said he thought defendant was merely joking and "it seemed like (defendant) had been drinking (but) not not too bad." When defendant was leaving Carter's home, the automobile slipped off the "narrow" road into a ditch, and one of Carter's sons helped get the car out of the ditch. Defendant then drove to a service station, changed a tire, washed the car, and returned to Mt. Airy.
The medical evidence revealed that the decedent had been crushed to death. The medical examiner was unable to determine whether decedent had been stabbed because of the crushing injuries to his body. Decedent's blood alcohol content was .28%. Oil and grease were found on decedent's clothing, and particles of hair removed from the underside of the automobile were identified as those of the decedent.
Defendant, testifying as the only witness in his behalf, stated that he had two drinks of whiskey and a bottle of beer before leaving Mt. Airy; that Ruby drove her automobile the entire time they were together, except when he backed it out of the ditch; that Hill was carrying a fifth and almost a full pint of whiskey when he got in their automobile; that they all drank some of Hill's whiskey; that he (defendant) suggested they needed some more whiskey and when they were on their way to get it, Hill asked to be let out of the car; that the last time he saw Hill, he was standing on the side of the road; that Hill left some of his whiskey in the car when he got out; and that Ruby then drove to Willie Carter's home. He said he stayed at Carter's home only long enough to give him a cigarette. He denied telling Carter that he had stabbed or run over anyone. Defendant stated that he had drunk about a quart of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Remington v. Com.
...Va. 390, 398, 519 S.E.2d 808, 813 (1999),cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1113, 120 S.Ct. 1970, 146 L.Ed.2d 800 (2000); Hatcher v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 811, 814, 241 S.E.2d 756, 758 (1978). The defendant argues that the evidence of premeditation was insufficient as a matter of law and, therefore, hi......
-
Juniper v. Com.
...the law is nonetheless improperly given if it is "inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the case." Hatcher v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 811, 813-14, 241 S.E.2d 756, 758 (1978). "An instruction must be supported by more than a scintilla of evidence." Id. at 814, 241 S.E.2d at As previou......
-
Porter v. Com.
...of such an instruction "must amount to more than a scintilla." Justus, 222 Va. at 678, 283 S.E.2d at 911; Hatcher v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 811, 814, 241 S.E.2d 756, 758 (1978). Buchanan v. Commonwealth, 238 Va. 389, 409, 384 S.E.2d 757, 769 "Because the issue on appeal deals with the circui......
-
Orbe v. True
...to `more than a scintilla.'" See Rosen v. Greifenberger, 257 Va. 373, 380, 513 S.E.2d 861, 865 (1999) (citing Hatcher v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 811, 814, 241 S.E.2d 756, 758 (1978) (refusing to grant instruction on voluntary intoxication in a murder case, where evidence showed that defendant......