Virginia Henrico County Malicious Wounding Robbery Lawyers Attorney

by

Atchuthan Sriskandarajah

ROYALLE DESHAVON GOODE v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

July 22, 2008, Decided

Facts:

A sixty-four-year-old man James Crouch, was attacked by an individual armed with a baseball bat. As a result of the attack, Crouch sustained a crushed right index finger, a facial fracture, severe neck pain, and head trauma, which caused vertigo, chronic instability, and balance disorder. On receiving information that a patient was being treated for a gunshot wound at a nearby hospital, investigating officer made enquiries. The patient, Cotman admitted his involvement in the attack explaining that he wanted Crouch’s gun, but denied hitting Crouch with a baseball bat. Cotman indicated to the police investigating officer that it was Goode’s plan for the two of them to attack the security guard. According to Goode, the defendant it was Cotman who planned the attack for the purpose of taking Crouch’s gun. Following a bench trial, the Circuit Court of

Henrico County

(Virginia) convicted defendant of attempted robbery, in violation of Va. Code Ann. 18.2-26 and 18.2-58, and aggravated malicious wounding, in violation of Va. Code Ann. 18.2-51.2. Defendant appealed.

Issue:

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant s convictions for attempted robbery in violation of Va. Code Ann. 18.2-26 and 18.2-58, and aggravated malicious wounding, in violation of Va. Code Ann. 18.2-51.2?

Discussion:

This court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant s convictions. This court noted that the defendant admitted that, the day after he and the other person planned the attack on the victim, the two of them met late in the evening at a gas station near the scene of the attack, pursuant to their plan. And defendant never expressed any reservations to Cotman about the attack. This court concludes the evidence established that Goode was a principal in the second degree as to both attempted robbery and aggravated malicious wounding. Defendant was thus subject to be “indicted, tried, convicted and punished in all respects as if a principal in the first degree. These facts provide more than adequate support for a finding that defendant was “present lending countenance” to Cotman to commit the planned attack, by advising, encouraging, inciting and/or urging Cotman to do so–even if defendant did not actually engage in the attack itself. That is to say, evidence of defendant s conduct in concert with Cotman and proximity to the attack was ample proof of defendant s presence, shared criminal intent, and overt criminal acts in furtherance of the attack. The trial court, as the trier of fact, thus rationally found that defendant was a principal in the second degree in commission of the crimes of attempted robbery and aggravated

malicious wounding

.

Conclusion:

This court hence affirms the trial court s judgment that convicted defendant of attempted robbery, in violation of Va. Code Ann. 18.2-26 and 18.2-58, and aggravated malicious wounding, in violation of Va. Code Ann. 18.2-51.2.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm s unofficial views of the Justices opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content

Atchuthan Sriskandarajah is a Virginia lawyer and owner of the SRIS Law Group. The SRIS Law Group has offices in Virginia, Maryland,

Massachusetts

, New York, North Carolina & California. The firm handles criminal/traffic defense, family law, immigration & bankruptcy

Article Source:

ArticleRich.com