Martin v. Com.
| Decision Date | 10 June 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 761048,761048 |
| Citation | 218 Va. 4,235 S.E.2d 304 |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | Fillmore B. MARTIN, Jr. v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. Record |
Benjamin B. Cummings, Jr., Petersburg (Cummings & Levinson, Petersburg, on brief), for plaintiff in error.
Alan Katz, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Anthony F. Troy, Atty. Gen., on brief), for defendant in error.
Before I'ANSON, C. J., and CARRICO, HARRISON, COCHRAN, HARMAN, POFF and COMPTON, JJ.
On February 7, 1976, Martin D. Taylor was shot and killed. The defendant, Fillmore B. Martin, Jr., admitted the shooting but claimed the killing was accidental. A jury convicted defendant of second degree murder and fixed his punishment at twenty years in the penitentiary. He was sentenced accordingly. We granted a writ of error limited to the question whether the trial court erred in refusing an instruction relating to the defense of accident.
The evidence shows that on February 7, 1976, the deceased, Taylor, was helping Lydia Quick move from her apartment in the Webster Court Apartment complex in Petersburg. Taylor was carrying boxes containing dishes from the apartment to Miss Quick's automobile at approximately 7:20 p. m. when Miss Quick heard a crash. She immediately went outside and found deceased lying beside the open door of her car. When Miss Quick asked Taylor what was wrong, he said "Angel" shot him.
Officer Farren arrived on the scene shortly thereafter. Taylor was still alive, and he stated to the officer that "Angel shot me, shot me for no reason, and he shot me with a shotgun." Taylor told Farren that he did not know Angel's real name. The victim was then removed to the hospital where he died within a short time.
Upon further investigation, the police ascertained that "Angel" was the alias of the defendant, and they "picked him up" the next morning for questioning. After defendant was given his Miranda warnings he first denied that he knew anything about the killing, but shortly thereafter, after again being fully advised of his rights, gave a signed statement of his involvement. He stated that he found a black sawed-off shotgun in the Byrd Park area of Richmond on the afternoon of February 7; that, while he was on his way to a friend's home in the Webster Court Apartments to ask him to keep the gun for him until he could sell it, he saw Marty Taylor at the apartment complex; that Marty asked him to let him see the shotgun; that, as he was attempting to "break the gun down" to determine if it was loaded before showing it to Marty, it discharged and Marty was shot; that he stood there for a second, then ran to his car and drove away; that he threw the gun in some bushes off the north side of Flank Road; and that he was willing to lead the police to the location of the gun.
A shotgun was later found in the area where defendant had disposed of it, and it was introduced into evidence.
Defendant's testimony at the trial was substantially the same as his written statement. In addition he said that he had known Marty Taylor about two years and when they saw each other, they usually "patted hands." There had been no trouble between them.
The defendant contends that the trial court erred in refusing Instruction A. He argues the instruction was a correct statement of the law, and it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shaikh v. Commonwealth, Record No. 2614-03-4 (VA 1/25/2005)
...the jury on a point at issue when the jury may make findings based upon a mistaken belief of the law. Martin v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 4, 7, 235 S.E.2d 304, 305 (1977) (per curiam). These elemental principles were violated in the trial of this "Although the Commonwealth prevailed at trial, t......
-
Walker v. Com.
...not to instruct the jury when the jury may make findings based upon a mistaken belief of the law. See Martin v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 4, 7, 235 S.E.2d 304, 305 (1977) (per curiam). Walker's proffered instruction was necessary because the unavailability of parole was a relevant factor to con......
-
Gaines v. Com., Record No. 0839-01-1.
...220 Va. 114, 116, 255 S.E.2d 506, 508 (1979) (error to refuse to instruct on elements of shooting offense); Martin v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 4, 7 235 S.E.2d 304, 305 (1977) (error to refuse instruction that defendant has no burden of proof when he raised the defense of accident because Commo......
-
King v. Commonwealth
...an accused is entitled to an instruction presenting his theory of accidental killing as a defense.” Martin v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 4, 6, 235 S.E.2d 304, 305 (1977) (per curiam). In Martin , the defendant was charged with second-degree murder but raised accident as a defense. Id. at 4, 23......