Parish v. Commonwealth Of Va., Record No. 1435-09-4.

Docket NºRecord No. 1435-09-4.
Citation56 Va.App. 324, 693 S.E.2d 315
Case DateJune 01, 2010
CourtCourt of Appeals of Virginia

56 Va.App. 324
693 S.E.2d 315

Anne Boston PARISH
v.
COMMONWEALTH of Virginia.

Record No. 1435-09-4.

Court of Appeals of Virginia.

June 1, 2010.


693 S.E.2d 316

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

693 S.E.2d 317
Robert Bell (John E. Davidson; Davidson & Kitzmann, PLC, on briefs), for appellant.

Alice T. Armstrong, Assistant Attorney General II (Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Present: BEALES, POWELL and ALSTON, JJ.

ALSTON, Judge.

Anne Boston Parish (appellant) appeals her conviction for assault and battery, in violation of Code § 18.2-57. On appeal, appellant contends that (1) the evidence was insufficient to find that appellant intended to inflict fear of bodily harm, and thus the evidence was insufficient to sustain appellant's conviction for assault; and (2) the evidence was insufficient to find that appellant intended to inflict bodily harm, and thus the evidence was insufficient to sustain appellant's conviction for battery. For the reasons that follow, we affirm appellant's conviction.

I. BACKGROUND

In determining whether evidence is sufficient to support a conviction, we view the evidence “in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom.” Sandoval v. Commonwealth, 20 Va.App. 133, 135, 455 S.E.2d 730, 731 (1995).

The evidence showed that on February 4, 2009, at approximately 2:00 p.m., United States Postal Service employee LaNeta Roth was delivering mail at the 300 block of North Patrick Street and the 1000 block of Queen Street, near appellant's place of business. As Roth delivered the mail, appellant, who was standing near her office, which was across the street from Roth, began yelling and demanding her mail. Appellant called Roth a “dumb blond bitch” and “an idiot,” and stated, “Hurry up[.] I need my mail[.] I'm trying to go home.” Roth told appellant she would deliver her mail momentarily and continued on her assigned route.

Roth continued along Queen Street until she reached appellant's address, which was the last stop on the route. At that point, appellant was “screaming” at Roth and demanding her mail. Roth told appellant that she would not deliver her mail because appellant had called her names, and informed appellant that she would have to call the post office to collect her mail. Roth then turned and was walking across Queen Street when appellant grabbed her left shoulder and pulled her back. Roth testified that appellant pulled Roth's hair, twisting her head and body around until Roth faced appellant. Fellow postal employee Robert Williams witnessed these events.

Roth screamed for help, jerked loose from appellant's grip, and ran down the block. Roth retreated to the 400 block of Patrick Street and called the post office to report the altercation. Williams followed Roth and found Roth crying. Roth was visibly shaken and upset when she returned to the post office and spoke with her supervisor that afternoon.

Appellant moved to strike the evidence at the conclusion of the Commonwealth's case-in-chief, arguing that the Commonwealth had not proven appellant's “intent to harm,” and thus had not put forth sufficient evidence to prove assault and battery. The trial court denied the motion to strike. In closing remarks, appellant again argued that the Commonwealth failed to prove assault and battery by failing to prove intent to harm.

The trial court found appellant guilty of assault and battery, in violation of Code § 18.2-57. This appeal followed.

II. ANALYSIS
A. Procedural Default

On appeal, the Commonwealth argues that appellant did not properly preserve her arguments for appellate consideration. The Commonwealth argues that, at trial, defense counsel agreed to the trial court's definition of assault and battery, and appellant may not

693 S.E.2d 318
object to that definition on appeal.1 The trial court defined assault and battery as “[a]n unwanted touching, however slight, done in an angry, rude or vengeful manner.” The trial court did not include the element of intent to harm in its definition of assault and battery.

Based on a review of the record, this Court does not consider defense counsel's statements at trial a concession to the trial court's definition of assault and battery. Because defense counsel raised the issue and made his position clear during his motion to strike and closing arguments, he properly preserved the issue. Lee v. Lee, 12 Va.App. 512, 515, 404 S.E.2d 736, 738 (1991) (holding that counsel can preserve objection to judgment for appellate review during a motion to strike the evidence or in closing argument). As a result, we hold that appellant preserved this issue for appellate consideration.

B. Assault and Battery

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in finding the evidence sufficient, as a matter of law, to support her conviction. “ ‘We review questions of law, and mixed questions of law and fact, utilizing a de novo standard of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 practice notes
  • Pleasants v. Town of Louisa, Case No. 3:11–cv–00032.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District of Virginia)
    • March 12, 2012
    ...result in injury to the person; “ ‘[i]t is sufficient if it does injury to the [victim's] mind or feelings.’ ” Parish v. Commonwealth, 56 Va.App. 324, 330, 693 S.E.2d 315, 318 (2010) (quoting Wood v. Commonwealth, 149 Va. 401, 404, 140 S.E. 114, 115 (1927)). In the instant case, K.P.'s reco......
  • Kelley v. Commonwealth, Record No. 1063-17-4
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals of Virginia
    • January 8, 2019
    ...18.2-57. Placing an individual in reasonable apprehension of bodily harm constitutes an assault. 822 S.E.2d 379 Parish v. Commonwealth, 56 Va. App. 324, 330-31, 693 S.E.2d 315 (2010) ; see also Clark v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 636, 641, 691 S.E.2d 786 (2010) (defining the common law offense o......
  • Guerrero v. Deane, No. 1:09cv1313 (JCC).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Virginia)
    • October 27, 2010
    ...“To sustain a conviction for battery, the Commonwealth must prove a ‘wil[l]ful or unlawful touching’ of another.” Parish v. Commonwealth, 56 Va.App. 324, 330, 693 S.E.2d 315, 319 (Va.App.2010) (quoting Wood v. Commonwealth, 149 Va. 401, 404, 140 S.E. 114, 115 (1927)). It is not necessary th......
  • Pleasants v. Town of Louisa, CASE NO. 3:11-cv-00032
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District of Virginia)
    • March 12, 2012
    ...not result in injury to the person; "'[i]t is sufficient if it does injury to the [victim's] mind or feelings.'" Parish v. Commonwealth, 56 Va. App. 324, 330, 693 S.E.2d 315, 318 (2010) (quoting Wood v. Commonwealth, 149 Va. 401, 404, 140 S.E. 114, 115 (1927)). In the instant case, K.P.'s r......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
24 cases
  • Pleasants v. Town of Louisa, Case No. 3:11–cv–00032.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District of Virginia)
    • March 12, 2012
    ...result in injury to the person; “ ‘[i]t is sufficient if it does injury to the [victim's] mind or feelings.’ ” Parish v. Commonwealth, 56 Va.App. 324, 330, 693 S.E.2d 315, 318 (2010) (quoting Wood v. Commonwealth, 149 Va. 401, 404, 140 S.E. 114, 115 (1927)). In the instant case, K.P.'s reco......
  • Kelley v. Commonwealth, Record No. 1063-17-4
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals of Virginia
    • January 8, 2019
    ...18.2-57. Placing an individual in reasonable apprehension of bodily harm constitutes an assault. 822 S.E.2d 379 Parish v. Commonwealth, 56 Va. App. 324, 330-31, 693 S.E.2d 315 (2010) ; see also Clark v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 636, 641, 691 S.E.2d 786 (2010) (defining the common law offense o......
  • Guerrero v. Deane, No. 1:09cv1313 (JCC).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Virginia)
    • October 27, 2010
    ...“To sustain a conviction for battery, the Commonwealth must prove a ‘wil[l]ful or unlawful touching’ of another.” Parish v. Commonwealth, 56 Va.App. 324, 330, 693 S.E.2d 315, 319 (Va.App.2010) (quoting Wood v. Commonwealth, 149 Va. 401, 404, 140 S.E. 114, 115 (1927)). It is not necessary th......
  • Pleasants v. Town of Louisa, CASE NO. 3:11-cv-00032
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District of Virginia)
    • March 12, 2012
    ...not result in injury to the person; "'[i]t is sufficient if it does injury to the [victim's] mind or feelings.'" Parish v. Commonwealth, 56 Va. App. 324, 330, 693 S.E.2d 315, 318 (2010) (quoting Wood v. Commonwealth, 149 Va. 401, 404, 140 S.E. 114, 115 (1927)). In the instant case, K.P.'s r......
  • 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