Description: Richmond, Virginia criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with violating a protective order.

On November 24, 2018, L.M. obtained a permanent protective order against appellant, with whom she had a young son. The protective order prohibited appellant from having "contact of any kind with" L.M. except as permitted by a custody or visitation order and from "commit[ting] acts of family abuse or criminal offenses that result in injury to person or property." On the morning of December 13, 2018, appellant knocked on L.M.’s front door. L.M. told appellant to "go away" and walked to her bedroom.

A few minutes later, L.M. heard a noise behind her house. She ran out of her bedroom and saw appellant standing inside her hallway. L.M. returned to her bedroom and grabbed her son. Appellant followed L.M. into the bedroom and asked to hold the child, but L.M. refused and "balled up" with the child in her arms. L.M. testified that, in response, "[appellant] bit me on my leg and so I just screamed, and then he just walked out the front door." L.M. subsequently clarified that appellant had bitten her on her knee. She did not remember if appellant had left a bite mark and admitted that she did not look at her knee after the incident.

A few hours later, L.M. went to the police station to report the incident. A police officer asked to see L.M.’s knee, so L.M. pulled up her left pantleg. The officer photographed the knee, which had a spot of "discoloration" on the kneecap. L.M. did not know if the photograph depicted "where" appellant had bitten her because she could not "remember [which] leg it was." L.M. testified that she suffered from "hypomelanosis," a condition that causes a "lack of pigment on certain parts of [her] body, like on [her] knee." She testified that the "coloration" of her knee as displayed in the photograph is how her knee "usually looks." L.M. did not tell the officer at the police station about her skin condition.

* * *

Legal issue Is the evidence sufficient to demonstrate that bodily injury occurred in violation of a protective order under Code § 16.1-253.2(C)?
Headnote

CRIMINAL LAW. VIOLATION OF PROTECTIVE ORDER. The case discusses an appeal regarding the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction for violating a protective order by committing assault and battery resulting in bodily injury, focusing on the interpretation of "bodily injury" under Virginia Code § 16.1-253.2(C).

CRIMINAL LAW. STATUTORY INTERPRETATION. The court considered the interpretation of the term "bodily injury" in the context of protective order violations, concluding that it includes any bodily damage, harm, hurt, or impairment, whether observable or not.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. EVIDENCE SUFFICIENCY. The judgment addresses the standards for reviewing evidence sufficiency in criminal appeals, confirming that a conviction will be upheld if a rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Key Paragraphs

Highlight Key Paragraphs

“..."When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, ‘[t]he judgment of the trial court is presumed correct and will not be disturbed unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.’ ","In such cases, ‘[t]he Court does not ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ",Instead, we ask only "whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.","If there is evidentiary support for the conviction, ‘the reviewing court is not permitted to substitute its own judgment, even if its opinion might differ from the conclusions reached by the finder of fact at the trial.’ "...”
Key Phrases Violation of protective order. Bodily injury. Assault and battery. Sufficiency of the evidence. Protective order statute.

Outcome: The Defendant was found guilty.

Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: