Massie v. Commonwealth

Citation867 S.E.2d 802,74 Va.App. 309
Decision Date08 February 2022
Docket NumberRecord No. 0282-21-4
Parties Rodney MASSIE v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia
CourtCourt of Appeals of Virginia

Ryan J. Rakness (Rakness & Wright PLC, on brief), for appellant.

Matthew P. Dullaghan, Senior Assistant Attorney General (Mark R. Herring,1 Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Present: Judges Russell, Lorish and Senior Judge Annunziata

OPINION BY JUDGE WESLEY G. RUSSELL, JR.

Pertinent to this appeal, Rodney Massie was indicted by a grand jury of rape for feloniously causing another to engage in sexual intercourse with another person through the use of force, threat, or intimidation; forcible sodomy for feloniously causing another to engage in anal intercourse with another person through the use of force, threat, or intimidation; abduction with the intent to defile or for the purpose of prostitution in violation of Code § 18.2-48 ; and use of a firearm in the commission of each of the referenced felonies.2 On appeal, Massie asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion to strike the charges, arguing that the evidence with respect to each charge was insufficient as a matter of law. For the following reasons, we disagree with Massie and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

BACKGROUND

Because the Commonwealth was the prevailing party below, we "view the record in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth[,]" granting it any inferences that flow from that view. Delp v. Commonwealth , 72 Va. App. 227, 230, 843 S.E.2d 758 (2020). Accordingly, we discard any of appellant's conflicting evidence, and regard as true all credible evidence favorable to the Commonwealth and all inferences that reasonably may be drawn from that evidence. Gerald v. Commonwealth , 295 Va. 469, 473, 813 S.E.2d 722 (2018).

In 2017, C.W. was homeless and living in a tent in Culpeper County. She would earn money by occasionally detailing cars at a self-serve carwash. She also worked as a day laborer at various landscaping jobs when such jobs were available.

Near the end of May, Massie approached C.W. at the carwash and offered her some landscaping work. C.W. agreed, although she told Massie she was "sick," as she was experiencing withdrawals from her drug addiction. Massie responded that he would get her some Suboxone

, which C.W. thought could help her. After C.W. collected her belongings from the tent, Massie gave her a ride to his house. On the way, Massie told C.W. he had some crack cocaine that they could smoke at his house.

When they arrived at Massie's home, C.W. met Massie's wife and his eleven-year-old daughter. C.W. also was introduced to Massie's pit bull named "Blue." Upon meeting Blue, Massie instructed C.W., "[d]o not walk around the house," because Blue "doesn't like people walking around the house." Later in the evening, Massie and C.W. smoked crack cocaine. C.W. then spent the night at Massie's house.

The next day, Massie woke C.W. and told her she needed to go to work. Massie, C.W., and "David" drove to northern Virginia where they mowed and weeded a large parcel of land. Although they labored for approximately eight hours, Massie did not pay C.W. for her work. On the way back to Culpeper, they "went straight to the crack man's house" to procure drugs. Once back at Massie's house, they smoked the crack.

Massie, C.W., and David worked again the next day. Despite C.W. requesting payment for the work she performed, Massie did not pay her. Massie told C.W. that his "bitches don't have money." When returning from the job site, Massie again stopped at what C.W. had called the "crack man's house" to purchase drugs. After the purchase, Massie, C.W., and David returned to Massie's house where they smoked the crack.

The next day they were unable to find work. However, Massie received some cash from his uncle and he purchased more crack cocaine, which Massie and C.W. shared.

Later that day, C.W. received a phone call from an acquaintance who told her that a package had been left for her at a nearby gas station. Massie drove C.W. to the station to collect it. Inside the box, C.W. found a Bible, an envelope, a homemade bookmark containing a Bible verse, and gift cards for Kohl's, Dairy Queen, and Chick-fil-A. C.W. returned to Massie's vehicle, and when she showed him what she had received, Massie took the items from her, allowing her to keep only the Bible. Soon thereafter, Massie drove to a different location and gave the gift cards to another person. Massie did give C.W. twenty-five dollars to credit her cell phone account to enable her to receive calls. Upon returning to Massie's home, C.W. and Massie smoked crack cocaine.

The following day C.W. woke up too late to work on a landscaping project with Massie, so she walked to the carwash to clean and detail a car. She was paid forty dollars in cash, and from that, she spent approximately eleven dollars for cell phone service. She sent Massie a text message advising him of her location, and he arrived shortly thereafter. Massie was angry, jumped out of his vehicle and stated, "I told you, you ain't allowed to have money. My bitches don't have money." Massie then "snatche[d]" the remaining cash out of C.W.’s hands.

C.W. did not leave with Massie at that time, although he came back later in the evening to give her a ride back to his residence. While driving, Massie told C.W. that she needed to "take care of one of his friends."

Once back at the residence, Massie instructed C.W. to "go take a shower" and to "treat the gentleman nicely." C.W. took a shower, dressed, and encountered Massie and Blue in the hallway. Massie told C.W. that she "needed to go take care of ... Boogie," a man she had never met. C.W. told Massie that she did not "do this type of stuff." Massie responded that she "had to" and that he, Massie, already had been paid. C.W. stopped at the office door and repeated "this is not what I do" and asked "why do I have to do it[?]" Massie told C.W. that Savannah3 had "already made her money for the day" and displayed a revolver, which he "clicked ... back" before telling C.W. to go into the office "or else."

C.W. testified she was "scared to death" because she "knew there was no way for [her] to get out of it[,]" so she entered the office. In addition to being afraid of the gun, C.W. was fearful of Blue because she had seen the dog "freak out" and behave aggressively when Massie commanded him to do so.

Once inside the office, Boogie pulled C.W. toward him, turned her around, and pulled down her pants and underwear. C.W. "felt his penis go into [her] anus." C.W. told Boogie to stop and he did. He then had vaginal intercourse with her that lasted three to five minutes, until Boogie realized C.W. was crying and he stopped. Boogie then put on his clothes, helped C.W. dress, and left the room. C.W. did not leave the office immediately because she would have had to pass by Massie and Blue.

C.W. testified that she neither wanted to have, nor consented to having, anal or vaginal intercourse with Boogie and stated that she did not consent to having a third party pay Massie for the ability to have sex with her.

At the conclusion of all of the evidence, Massie moved to strike the charges, arguing the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law. The trial court overruled the motion to strike as to each charge.

The parties agreed on the jury instructions setting forth the elements of the predicate felonies. Consistent with the language of Code § 18.2-61(A), the jury was instructed that, in order to convict Massie of rape, the Commonwealth had to prove that Massie "caused [C.W.] to engage in sexual intercourse with another person ... against her will and without her consent ... by [means of] force, threat or intimidation." Similarly, and consistent with the language of Code § 18.2-67.1(A)(2), the jury was instructed that, in order to convict Massie of forcible sodomy, the Commonwealth had to prove that Massie "caused [C.W.] to engage in anal intercourse with another person ... against her will ... by [means of] force, threat or intimidation."

Regarding the charge of abduction in violation of Code § 18.2-48, the jury was instructed as to the standard elements of abduction, i.e. , that, to support a conviction, the Commonwealth had to prove that Massie seized C.W. "by force or intimidation ... with the intent to deprive [C.W.] of her personal liberty ... without legal justification or excuse." In addition to the standard abduction elements, the jury also was instructed that, for a conviction pursuant to Code § 18.2-48, the Commonwealth was required to prove that Massie committed the seizure of C.W. "with the intent to sexually molest [her] or for the purpose of prostitution[.]"

The jury returned guilty verdicts on all charges, specifically finding Massie guilty of each offense "as charged in the indictment." The trial court entered judgment on the jury's verdicts and subsequently sentenced Massie for each conviction. Massie now appeals, asserting in his assignment of error that the trial court

erred in denying the motion to strike as a matter of law finding that the evidence was sufficient to find the appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of abduction with intent to defile, rape, sodomy and use of a firearm in the commission of those offenses.
ANALYSIS
I. Standard of Review

In challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to strike, Massie necessarily asserts that the jury should not have been allowed to even consider the charges because "[a] motion to strike challenges whether the evidence is sufficient to submit the case to the jury." Linnon v. Commonwealth , 287 Va. 92, 98, 752 S.E.2d 822 (2014) (quoting Lawlor v. Commonwealth , 285 Va. 187, 223, 738 S.E.2d 847 (2013) ). As a result, Massie's appeal raises the question of whether the evidence adduced sufficiently presented "a prima facie case for consideration by the" jury. Vay v. Commonwealth , 67 Va. App. 236, 249, 795 S.E.2d 495 (2017) (quoting Hawkins v. Commonwealth , 64 Va. App. 650, 657,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Meade v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals
    • May 17, 2022
    ... ... 5 Identifying the elements of the offenses presents a legal question that we address de novo. Massie v. Commonwealth , 74 Va. App. 309, 319, 867 S.E.2d 802 (2022). The trial court acquitted Meade of both attempted murder and attempted malicious wounding. 6 As pertinent here, both crimes contain elements requiring that the defendant possess a specific intent to kill or injure. See Coles v ... ...
  • Johnson v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals
    • May 17, 2022
    ... ... (holding that a fact finder may properly reject a ... defendant's hypothesis of innocence) ...          In sum, ... the "combined force" of the above circumstances ... established overwhelming evidence of appellant's guilt ... See Massie v. Commonwealth , 74 Va.App. 309, 323 ... (2022) (recognizing that "the combined force of many ... concurrent and related circumstances, each insufficient in ... itself, may lead a reasonable mind irresistibly to a ... conclusion" (quoting Pick v. Commonwealth , 72 ... ...
  • Hypes v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals
    • September 6, 2022
    ... ... 795, 804 n.4 ... (2012). We regard all credible evidence favorable to the ... prevailing party as true and disregard all conflicting ... evidence. See id. at 803-04. The same standard ... applies to reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence. See ... Massie v. Commonwealth , 74 Va.App. 309, 315 (2022) ...          "Constructive ... possession may be established by 'evidence of acts, ... statements, or conduct of the accused or other facts or ... circumstances which tend to show that the defendant was aware ... ...
  • Garay-Amaya v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals
    • March 28, 2023
    ... ... strike, [appellant] necessarily asserts that the jury should ... not have been allowed to even consider the charges because ... '[a] motion to strike challenges whether the evidence is ... sufficient to submit the case to the jury.'" ... Massie v. Commonwealth , 74 Va.App. 309, 319 (2022) ... (last alteration in original) (quoting Linnon v ... Commonwealth , 287 Va. 92, 98 (2014)). "As a result, ... [appellant's] challenge raises the question of whether ... the evidence adduced sufficiently presented 'a prima ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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