Huguely v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 04 March 2014 |
| Docket Number | Record No. 1697–12–2. |
| Citation | 754 S.E.2d 557,63 Va.App. 92 |
| Court | Virginia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | George Wesley HUGUELY, V v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Paul D. Clement (Craig S. Cooley; Bancroft PLLC; Craig S. Cooley, P.L.C., Richmond, on briefs), for appellant.
Leah A. Darron, Senior Assistant Attorney General (Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Present: Judges PETTY, BEALES and CHAFIN.
A jury convicted George Wesley Huguely, V, of second-degree murder and grand larceny, in violation of Code §§ 18.2–32 and 18.2–95. Before this Court, Huguely now appeals only his second-degree murder conviction.1 This Court granted the following assignments of error raised in Huguely's petition for appeal:
I. The circuit court violated Mr. Huguely's right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment and the Virginia Constitution by forcing him to proceed with trial in the absence of his retained counsel of choice.
II. The circuit court violated Mr. Huguely's right to a trial by a fair and impartial jury under the Sixth Amendment and Virginia Constitution by:
A. Refusing to allow the defense to ask questions during voir dire that were directly relevant to whether prospective jurors could remain impartial.
B. Refusing to strike for cause a number of jurors whose answers during voir dire raised serious doubts about their ability to remain impartial.
III. The circuit court did not adequately instruct the jury about the meaning of “malice” under Virginia law.2
For the following reasons, we affirm Huguely's conviction for second-degree murder.
On the night of Sunday, May 2, 2010, at about twenty minutes before midnight, Huguely walked the short distance from his apartment building on 14th Street in Charlottesville to another apartment building, also on 14th Street, where Huguely's former girlfriend, Yeardley Love, resided. Huguely and Love were both nearing graduation from the University of Virginia, and both played lacrosse there. They had dated “[o]n and off” since their first year at the university, according to the trial testimony of Caitlin Whiteley, one of Love's roommates. The record establishes a tumultuous relationship between Huguely and Love that deteriorated acrimoniously during the spring semester of 2010. Whiteley testified that, “towards the end of the [academic] year,” the relationship “was off, mainly.”
Love did not invite Huguely to her apartment on the night of May 2. In fact, Whiteley testified that Love was asleep in her bedroom when Whiteley left the apartment at about 10:50 p.m. Huguely arrived just under an hour later. After entering Love's apartment, which was apparently unlocked, Huguely kicked open Love's locked bedroom door. No one else witnessed what occurred next. However, Anna Lehmman, a resident of the apartment directly below Love's, testified that she heard a “very, very loud” sound from above at about 11:50 p.m. Lehmann explained that it sounded like “slamming the trunk [of a car], that that's how loud it was, if you really slammed it.” Moments later, Lehmann heard footsteps descending the stairs of the apartment building and then observed a man (later identified as Huguely) walk away outside.
Whiteley returned to the apartment shortly after 2:15 a.m. on Monday, May 3, 2010. Whiteley went to Love's bedroom to check on her—not noticing at first the hole in the bedroom door (that Huguely had created when he kicked in the bedroom door). According to Whiteley, Love was positioned “face down in her pillow” and “her hair was all messed up.” Whiteley moved Love's hair to the side, but Love made no response. Whiteley saw blood stains on Love's sheets and pillow case. Then Whiteley noticed that one of Love's eyes was very badly damaged and that there were many cuts to Love's face. Whiteley called out for Philippe Oudshoorn, a friend who had accompanied Whiteley back to the apartment, and they dialed 911.
Finding no signs of a pulse from Love, Oudshoorn followed the emergency operator's instructions to move Love to the floor and attempt CPR. Police officers arrived moments later, followed by the paramedics, who arrived at 2:26 a.m. The paramedics spent twenty-five minutes trying to resuscitate Love. During that entire time, however, Love never showed any signs of life. The medical examiner's autopsy report that followed Love's death concluded that the cause of death was blunt force injury to Love's head.
Whiteley testified that she told the police about Love's relationship with Huguely, specifically mentioning prior incidents when Huguely had either acted violently or threatened Love with violence. For example, Whiteley was aware of an incident on February 27, 2010 in Huguely's bedroom where Love was seen struggling to free herself from Huguely—whose arms were wrapped around Love's neck so tightly that Love was being choked. Several witnesses saw Love—in a panicked state and holding her throat—run out of Huguely's apartment. Whiteley testified that, when Love came home to their apartment, Love was “hysterical” and “was crying and visibly shaken and upset.” Whiteley had never seen Love like that before.
Huguely wrote Love a letter apologizing for the way he treated her on February 27, 2010. This letter was admitted into evidence at Huguely's trial and states, in pertinent part, Huguely's letter to Love also states, The letter concludes,
Despite the sentiments Huguely expressed in this letter, his relationship with Love continued to deteriorate as the spring semester of 2010 progressed. Notably, following a heated argument between Love and Huguely that occurred on April 27, 2010, the two engaged in a series of angrily worded emails, copies of which were received into the trial evidence. In particular, on April 30, 2010, he emailed her, stating:
That is so so f* * *ed up on so many levels. I should have killed you. I'm still in utter disbelief at everything that has happened recently and how u handle this.
Based on the testimony of several of his teammates from the men's lacrosse team, Huguely had been drinking alcohol heavily the majority of the day of May 2, 2010—since at least 9:30 a.m. Huguely was noticeably intoxicated at a reception following the lacrosse team's annual golf tournament that afternoon. Dinner at a restaurant with Huguely's father and two lacrosse teammates was cut short because of Huguely's drunken behavior. According to one of those teammates, William Thompson, “[I]t just got to the point where we just wanted to get out of there, out of the public.” Huguely urinated in public outside of the restaurant. Huguely's roommate, Kevin Carroll, testified that Huguely was drunk when Huguely returned to their apartment at 10:30 p.m.
Carroll and another lacrosse teammate, Kenneth Clausen, left the apartment at about 11:40 p.m. and were gone for about fifteen or twenty minutes. Huguely was not there when they returned. Huguely came back at about 12:15 a.m. Clausen testified, Huguely then lied about where he had been—claiming he had been drinking with a lacrosse teammate who Carroll and Clausen knew was studying at the time. Clausen testified:
I said, George, what's wrong with you? He looked at me and said, nothing. He said that there was nothing wrong. I asked him—I continued to look at him and observe him. I asked him two more times. I said, George, what's wrong with you? Got no response.
Huguely was at his apartment when the police arrived at 7:30 a.m. on Monday, May 3. During an interview with two detectives at the police station that morning, Huguely admitted going to Love's apartment the night before because he was “so pissed” that she would not talk to him and kicking a hole in the bedroom door to gain access to her bedroom—but he denied killing her. Huguely also admitted taking Love's laptop computer as “collateral” and later throwing the computer in a dumpster.4
A grand jury returned a six-count indictment charging Huguely with, inter alia, first-degree murder under Code § 18.2–32 and robbery under Code § 18.2–58.5 By this time, the case had received considerable attention in the media, in the Charlottesville area, and at the University of Virginia. The prospective jurors were directed to complete a nine-page questionnaire that addressed, among other topics, the prospective jurors' exposure to opinions in the case through the media and through family, friends, and co-workers. Voir dire of the prospective jurors spanned the first three days of the trial. Huguely's trial ended up lasting over two weeks—from February 6, 2012 until February 22, 2012. From the beginning of the Commonwealth's case on February 8, 2012 until the conclusion of the trial, nearly sixty witnesses were examined.
Huguely was represented by two defense attorneys—Rhonda Quagliana, Esq., and Francis McQ. Lawrence, Esq., both of whom were privately retained by Mr. Huguely. Neither Ms. Quagliana nor Mr. Lawrence was designated as lead counsel, although each attorney assumed different responsibilities during the trial. In particular, it was Ms. Quagliana's responsibility to examine two medical experts, Jan Leestma, M.D. and Ronald Uscinski, M.D., whose testimony was offered to contradict the Commonwealth's theory that Love's death was caused by blunt force trauma to the head. As a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Castillo v. Commonwealth
...on the law and evidence presented at trial").[70 Va.App. 423]"Juror impartiality is a question of fact." Huguely v. Commonwealth, 63 Va. App. 92, 121, 754 S.E.2d 557 (2014) (quoting Lovos-Rivas v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 55, 61, 707 S.E.2d 27 (2011) ). "Whether a venireman can lay aside a......
-
Goodwin v. Commonwealth
...the juror from giving the parties a fair and impartial trial). Juror impartiality is a question of fact. Huguely v. Commonwealth, 63 Va. App. 92, 121, 754 S.E.2d 557 (2014). "[W]hen conducting appellate review on [a] question of fact, ... the trial court’s [finding] must be affirmed unless ......
-
Huguely v. Clarke
...summarized by the Virginia courts, including the Virginia Court of Appeals in Huguely's direct appeal. See Huguely v. Commonwealth , 63 Va.App. 92, 754 S.E.2d 557 (2014). What follows is a summary highlighting the portions of the proceedings that are relevant to Huguely's federal habeas cla......
-
Keepers v. Commonwealth
...instructions and the juror’s oath. Green v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 105, 115, 546 S.E.2d 446 (2001). See also Huguely v. Commonwealth, 63 Va. App. 92, 121, 754 S.E.2d 557 (2014) ("Juror impartiality is a question of fact and a trial court’s decision to seat a juror is entitled to great defere......