Jones v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 05 November 2019
• Docket Number: Record No. 0730-18-1
• Citation: 833 S.E.2d 918,71 Va.App. 70
• Parties: Stanlee Sebastian JONES v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia
• Court: Virginia Court of Appeals

71 Va.App. 70

833 S.E.2d 918

Stanlee Sebastian JONES

v.COMMONWEALTH of Virginia

Record No. 0730-18-1

Court of Appeals of Virginia, Hampton.

NOVEMBER 5, 2019

W. McMillan Powers, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Lauren C. Campbell, Assistant Attorney General (Mark R. Herring, Attorney General; David M. Uberman, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Present: Judges Humphreys, Malveaux and Senior Judge Frank

OPINION BY JUDGE ROBERT J. HUMPHREYS

On December 7, 2017, a grand jury for the Circuit Court of the City of Portsmouth ("circuit court") indicted appellant Stanlee Sebastian Jones ("Jones") for (1) first-degree murder, in violation of Code § 18.2-32 ; (2) use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, in violation of Code § 18.2-53.1 ; and (3) possession of a firearm after a violent felony conviction, in violation of Code § 18.2-308.2. Following a jury trial, on February 6, 2018, Jones was found guilty of first-degree murder and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony.

On appeal, Jones assigns the following five errors and sub-errors:

II. The trial court erred when, after reviewing a video of the incident of August 18, 2018, it ruled that the victim, Richardson, did not commit an "overt act" sufficient to justify Defendant’s claim of self-defense.

a. The trial court erred in usurping the jury’s fact-finding function by determining that there was no overt act by the victim, despite Defendant’s proffered testimony that the victim reached to his waistband.

b. The trial court erred in precluding Defendant from testifying as to the actions of the victim on the day of the shooting.

III. The trial court erred in limiting Defendant’s constitutional right to present a comprehensive defense on his own behalf.

a. The trial court erred in refusing to allow the jury to hear Defendant’s properly proffered evidence of Defendant’s state of mind on August 18, 2017.

b. The trial court erred in refusing to allow the jury to hear additional evidence supporting Defendant’s theory of self-defense and his state of mind on August 18, 2017.

IV. The trial court erred in ruling that Richardson’s statements were hearsay and were inadmissible because there was no exception to the rule against hearsay that would permit their admission.

V. The trial court erred in precluding defense counsel from arguing evidence of record during closing argument because during cross examination the Commonwealth elicited a response regarding the defendant’s claim of self-defense that the Court did not strike from the evidence or provide a limiting instruction to the jury, but admonished defense counsel from arguing the evidence in closing argument.

VI. The trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury properly.

a. The trial court erred in failing to give the jury an instruction regarding self-defense.

b. The trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury as to the lesser included offense of manslaughter.

I. BACKGROUND

On August 18, 2017, Jones accompanied his girlfriend, Tayshana Jones ("Tayshana") to her home after she picked him up from work. Later, Jones drove Tayshana’s Volkswagen to the Essex Food Store in Portsmouth, accompanied by Tayshana and her two children. He parked directly in front of the store, got out of the car, "stepped out some," and returned to the car. Jones retrieved a gun from underneath the seat of the car. Then, he pointed the gun at a man sitting on the railing in front of the store and shot the gun repeatedly. As the victim retreated, Jones chased him down the street a short distance where the victim collapsed. The victim, later identified as Aljoro Curtis Richardson ("Richardson"), died of a gunshot wound to the torso. The entire homicide was quite clearly captured by two of the store’s surveillance cameras, from two different angles. Upon examination of the scene, a forensic technician did not find any weapons in Richardson’s clothing or on his person. After police barricades started to be removed, a pocketknife was found approximately four feet from Richardson’s left foot.

Before trial, the Commonwealth filed a motion in limine to preclude a plea of self-defense and the admission of any character evidence of Richardson. Specifically, the Commonwealth sought to prohibit defense counsel from referring to "any prior aggressive conduct" by the victim or the victim’s "character for violence" during opening statement. The Commonwealth also moved to prohibit introduction of such evidence at any time during trial or closing argument unless a proper foundation for self-defense was laid.

At the same time, the Commonwealth filed a motion to "preclude presentation of self-serving hearsay by the defendant during the Commonwealth’s case-in-chief."

On January 30, 2018, the circuit court conducted a hearing on the Commonwealth’s motions. Jones related his intention not to make arguments about his perceived fear during opening statement. In response to the Commonwealth’s motion to preclude mention of self-defense throughout the entire case, the circuit court stated that it would "likely not" preclude any mention of self-defense. In response, the Commonwealth asked that the circuit court preclude any mention of "the victim’s prior history, prior criminal history, any prior bad acts or ... prior aggressive conduct" until evidence of self-defense is produced. The circuit court did not rule on any of the Commonwealth’s pretrial motions at that time.

The following day, on January 31, 2018, the circuit court conducted a second hearing and viewed the surveillance videos of the killing a second time. The circuit court also listened to a recording of Jones’s statement to police in which Jones stated that Richardson said to Jones, "I should shoot him." Based on the video and statement, the circuit court found, "That by itself does not lay a foundation as far as this Court is concerned for self-defense, there is no overt act." The circuit court further ruled that case law "stand[s] for the proposition that if a proper foundation is laid for self-defense, then the prior acts can come in. But at this point, this Court has not seen anything which would allow a self-defense foundation ... there has been no overt act." The circuit court clarified that even if the victim made the statement alleged by Jones, "words alone are not sufficient" and "there is no way this Court can make a determination as to whether an overt act took place until the case has been developed." Jones asked that the circuit court "note" that his prior statements about Richardson threatening and shooting him were an exception to hearsay based on Jones’s mental state. The circuit court responded,

Only when the evidence interposes a plea of self-defense and when a proper foundation is laid by proof of some overt act justifying such defense, then the evidence is admissible. ... [H]aving viewed the video, and open to whatever evidence is adduced by the defense, I don’t see an overt act.

The circuit court clarified that it was "not precluding the defense—if you are able to lay a proper foundation for self-defense ... which includes the overt act, then the Court will deal with the prior acts, including specific acts."

On the second day of trial, the Commonwealth moved to exclude "any statements allegedly made by the victim as they are hearsay." Jones argued that the statements were not being offered for their truth and also that they related to Jones’s mental state. The circuit court ruled in favor of the Commonwealth, that the statements were inadmissible. However, the circuit court directed that Jones may testify, the defense may proceed with questioning, and the Commonwealth may object at the appropriate time. The circuit court allowed defense counsel to ask questions about Richardson’s statements, but advised Jones not to answer the questions until the court ruled.

During direct examination before the jury, Jones testified that once he pulled up to the Essex Food Store and proceeded out of the car, "a gentleman makes a statement toward me." The Commonwealth objected, and the jury was excused. Jones proffered that Richardson threatened, "That nigger right there, I should shoot him." Jones also proffered that Richardson contemporaneously reached toward his waistband "like he’s about to grab something." Jones testified that he thought Richardson was reaching for a gun because Richardson had on one occasion attempted to shoot him and had actually shot him on another occasion.¹ The Commonwealth objected, and the circuit court sustained the objection.

Jones further proffered that two days after Richardson shot Jones’s friend, Richardson threatened Jones. Jones also proffered two additional incidents in which Richardson threatened him. Jones again proffered that on the day of the killing, Richardson stated, "That motherfucker right there, going to shoot him" while Richardson reached into his waistband. Jones related that he feared for his life and for his family’s lives. At the end of the proffer, the Commonwealth objected to all of Jones’s testimony, and the circuit court excluded the testimony. The court found,

In this particular instance, the jury has seen the video. I’m making a ruling I don’t think that’s even reasonable, the gentleman’s explanation. I’m not going to allow it. I agree with the Commonwealth. I’m going to sustain the motion that he may not say anything about what the deceased said also.

The Commonwealth then moved to preclude Jones from testifying that Richardson reached for his waistband. The circuit court ruled, "He may testify as to what he saw. I’m not ruling that he can’t say what he saw. I’m ruling that’s not an overt act based on case law." Jones then resumed his testimony before the jury. Jones testified that when he saw Richardson, Jones recognized Richardson. Upon exiting the car, Jones saw Richardson "reaching for his waistband." As a result, Jones testified that he went back into the car, got his gun, and shot Richardson because he was scared.

During...