Meade v. Commonwealth

Decision Date17 May 2022
Docket NumberRecord No. 0651-21-3
Citation74 Va.App. 796,872 S.E.2d 240
Parties Justin Thomas MEADE v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia
CourtVirginia Court of Appeals

J. Thomas Love, Jr. (Office of the Public Defender, on briefs), for appellant.

Craig W. Stallard, Senior Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Present: Judges Russell, Friedman and Callins

OPINION BY JUDGE WESLEY G. RUSSELL, JR.

The trial court convicted appellant, Justin Thomas Meade, of maliciously shooting at an occupied building. On appeal, Meade contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because he fired his gun in self-defense. He also maintains that the trial court erroneously rendered inconsistent verdicts by convicting him of maliciously shooting at an occupied building while acquitting him of attempted murder, attempted malicious wounding, and two related firearm charges. Finally, Meade asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because he fired his weapon in the heat of passion. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

BACKGROUND

"In accordance with familiar principles of appellate review, the facts will be stated in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party at trial." Gerald v. Commonwealth , 295 Va. 469, 472, 813 S.E.2d 722 (2018) (quoting Scott v. Commonwealth , 292 Va. 380, 381, 789 S.E.2d 608 (2016) ). Accordingly, we regard as true all credible evidence favorable to the Commonwealth and all inferences that may reasonably be drawn from that evidence. Id. at 473, 813 S.E.2d 722.

On October 25, 2020, Meade and his fiancée, Kaitlyn Higdon, stopped at a Days Inn when his car overheated. Meade backed into a parking space directly in front of the motel, exited the vehicle, and opened the hood. While he was working on the car, Meade saw several people circulating nearby in the parking lot, including a man later identified as David Hunter Wills. Meade noticed Wills had a handgun at his waist. Meade retrieved a firearm from his car and placed it in his waistband before returning to the front of his vehicle.

Shortly thereafter, Wills approached and placed his gun on top of Meade's car; he then confronted Meade, accusing him of stealing. After Wills exchanged words with Meade in the parking lot, one of Wills’ companions handed Wills his gun. Despite having his gun, Wills began to assault Meade with his fists. Meade broke free from Wills and fled toward the motel with Wills and his companions in pursuit. As Meade circled back into the parking lot toward his car, the group overtook him, knocked him to the ground, and repeatedly hit and kicked him as he lay on the pavement.

Both Meade and Wills held their guns in their hands during the altercation. When a gun fired, the group scattered, and Wills ran in the direction of the motel.1 Meade stood in the parking lot and pointed his gun at Wills, but suddenly a car sped toward Meade, struck him, and knocked him to the pavement. Meade immediately rose to his feet, turned, and pointed his gun at the car as it left the parking lot. As he did, Wills took cover behind a parked vehicle in front of the motel and pointed his gun at Meade. According to Meade and Higdon, Wills fired at Meade, prompting Meade to "duck" and crouch behind the passenger side of his car.

When Meade was still behind his car, Wills was "running away" toward his motel room. Just as Wills reached the motel room door, Meade stood and fired his gun in Wills’ direction. After Wills entered the motel room, Meade fired a second time in the direction of the room.

Meade testified that his intention in firing the two shots toward Wills was not to strike, injure, or kill him, but rather, "[t]o get him away from me." Meade conceded that, at the time he fired the shots, Wills was "away" from him.

With his gun aimed at the motel room that Wills had entered, Meade entered his car through the driver's door. As Meade began to drive away, Wills exited the motel room and shot at Meade's car three times, striking the driver's door; however, Meade was able to drive away from the scene.

Neither Meade nor Higdon notified the police. Later, when Detective Hughes called Meade and attempted to interview him about the incident, Meade terminated the call without offering an explanation of the events.

The entire incident, which occurred during daylight hours, was captured from two angles on motel surveillance cameras. The video footage was admitted into evidence at Meade's trial for attempted murder, attempted malicious wounding, two related firearm charges, and maliciously shooting at an occupied building.

At trial, Meade moved to strike all of the charges at the conclusion of the Commonwealth's evidence and at the conclusion of all of the evidence. In support of his motions to strike, Meade asserted that he fired his gun in self-defense and that the evidence failed to prove malice because he acted in the heat of passion. Meade stressed that, when he fired his gun in the direction of the motel, he had just been attacked, struck by a vehicle, and had a gun pointed at his head. The Commonwealth responded that malice could be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon and emphasized that, when Meade fired at Wills, Wills was retreating into the motel. The Commonwealth asserted that Wills was already inside the motel when Meade fired his second shot, and thus, no longer posed an immediate threat. The Commonwealth maintained that Meade was "taking out his anger at Mr. Wills and firing off rounds at him." The trial court denied the motions.

Ultimately, the trial court convicted Meade of maliciously shooting at an occupied building and acquitted him of attempted murder, attempted malicious wounding, and the related firearm charges. The trial court found that Meade shot at Wills as he was running into the motel room.

Meade later moved to set aside his conviction, asserting that the trial court's verdicts were inconsistent because the basis for his acquittals was a finding that he had acted in self-defense when he fired at Wills. He stressed that "the same bullets that were fired in self-defense at the alleged victim ... were nevertheless the basis for the conviction for shooting at the occupied dwelling." The trial court denied Meade's motion, emphasizing that it did not acquit Meade of the other charges on self-defense grounds. To the contrary, the trial court noted that it had rejected Meade's claim of self-defense but nonetheless had concluded that the evidence was insufficient to convict Meade of the charges other than the malicious shooting at an occupied building.2 The trial court expressly found that, when Meade fired his gun at Wills, "the threa[t] of danger ... was over" and that Meade was "angry ... and he maliciously fired into an occupied" building. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS
I. Standard of review

"The judgment of a trial court sitting without a jury is entitled to the same weight as a jury verdict and will not be set aside unless it appears from the evidence that the judgment is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it." Wood v. Commonwealth , 57 Va. App. 286, 292, 701 S.E.2d 810 (2010) (quoting Martin v. Commonwealth , 4 Va. App. 438, 443, 358 S.E.2d 415 (1987) ). Accordingly, we do "not ask ... whether [we] believe[ ] that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt[,]" but rather, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, we ask "whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Secret v. Commonwealth , 296 Va. 204, 228, 819 S.E.2d 234 (2018) (quoting Pijor v. Commonwealth , 294 Va. 502, 512, 808 S.E.2d 408 (2017) ).

Such deference stems, in part, from the trial court's "opportunity to observe the testimony and demeanor of all witnesses." Lopez v. Commonwealth , 73 Va. App. 70, 81, 854 S.E.2d 660 (2021). We long have recognized that a "trial judge who views the witnesses as their testimony is given is in the better position to evaluate the evidence than an appellate court which reviews only a cold record." Harris v. Woodrum , 3 Va. App. 428, 433, 350 S.E.2d 667 (1986). Accordingly, "[t]he credibility of a witness, the weight accorded the testimony, and the inferences to be drawn from proven facts are matters solely for the fact finder's determination." Crawley v. Commonwealth , 29 Va. App. 372, 375, 512 S.E.2d 169 (1999).

Our deference, however, is not limited solely to matters of witness credibility. We owe deference to the trial court's interpretation of all of the evidence, including video evidence that we are able to observe much as the trial court did. Such deference stems not from the trial court being in a superior position to view the video evidence but from the difference in our respective roles. As factfinder, a trial court views video and other evidence to determine what it believes happened; we, on appellate review, view video evidence not to determine what we think happened, but for the limited purpose of determining whether any rational factfinder could have viewed it as the trial court did.

Our deference to the factual determinations of the trial court, however, does not extend to its resolution of legal questions. "We review questions of law, and mixed questions of law and fact, utilizing a de novo standard of review." Parish v. Commonwealth , 56 Va. App. 324, 329, 693 S.E.2d 315 (2010) (quoting Dunaway v. Commonwealth , 52 Va. App. 281, 299, 663 S.E.2d 117 (2008) ).

II. Self-defense

Meade contends that he is innocent of maliciously shooting at an occupied building because the shots he fired at the motel room were fired in self-defense. The trial court explicitly rejected Meade's claim that he fired the shots in self-defense. Meade asserts that this was error, arguing that the evidence, even when viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, establishes that he acted in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
45 cases
  • Daye v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Virginia
    • November 22, 2022
    ...the limited purpose of determining whether any rational factfinder could have viewed it as the trial court did." Meade v. Commonwealth, 74 Va.App. 796, 806 (2022). Here, the body camera video shows that the officers almost immediately began to focus on the odor of marijuana rather than the ......
  • Washington v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Virginia
    • October 18, 2022
    ...testimony at trial.3 We give the same deference to the trial court's interpretation of the video evidence. See Meade v. Commonwealth , 74 Va. App. 796, 806, 872 S.E.2d 240 (2022). "Such deference stems not from the trial court being in a superior position to view the video evidence but from......
  • Haefele v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Virginia
    • October 18, 2022
    ...cruelly beat the goats inflicting needless suffering on them for his and his co-defendants’ amusement. See Meade v. Commonwealth , 74 Va. App. 796, 806, 872 S.E.2d 240 (2022) ("[W]e, on appellate review, view video evidence ... for the limited purpose of determining whether any rational fac......
  • Commonwealth v. Branch
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Virginia
    • June 21, 2022
    ......486, 487. (1992). As to the body camera footage, we owe deference to. the trial court's interpretation of video evidence and. review it "for the limited purpose of determining. whether any rational factfinder could have viewed it as the. trial court did." Meade v. Commonwealth , 74. Va.App. 796, 806 (2022). We then review de novo . whether a search violates the Fourth Amendment under the. factual circumstances. McGee v. Commonwealth , 25. Va.App. 193, 197 (1997) ( en banc ); Jones v. Commonwealth , 71 Va.App. 375, 380 ......
  • 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