ROBERT TERRELL JACKSON V COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ( 2002 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Elder, Bumgardner and Clements
Argued at Richmond, Virginia
ROBERT TERRELL JACKSON
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 1266-01-2 JUDGE RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III
JULY 30, 2002
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LOUISA COUNTY
Daniel R. Bouton, Judge
John R. Maus for appellant.
John H. McLees, Senior Assistant Attorney
General (Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General,
on brief), for appellee.
Robert Terrell Jackson appeals his conviction of attempted
malicious wounding arguing the evidence was insufficient. He
also contends the trial court erred in revoking an earlier
suspended sentence because of this new conviction. Finding no
error, we affirm.
We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth granting it all reasonable inferences arising from
it. Martin v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 438, 443, 358 S.E.2d
415, 418 (1987). The victim was surveying for the Department of
Transportation. He parked on the defendant's property and began
removing surveying instruments from his van. Suddenly the
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
defendant appeared screaming and holding a machete above his
head. The defendant screamed that he was going to cut the
victim's head off, and came within two feet of the victim as he
yelled, "I'll kill your ass right here." The defendant
repeatedly raised and lowered the machete over the victim's head
as if to strike him and came within eight to ten inches of doing
so. The victim tried to get back to his van and leave. After
two to three minutes, he finally got into his van, hurriedly
left, and called the police. The defendant never struck the
victim.
"[A]n attempt is an unfinished crime, and is compounded of
two elements, the intent to commit the crime and the doing of
some direct act towards its consummation, [more than mere
preparation,] but falling short of the execution of the ultimate
design . . . ." Martin v. Commonwealth, 195 Va. 1107, 1110, 81
S.E.2d 574, 576 (1954). Although the Commonwealth must prove an
overt act in order to establish an attempt, if
"the design of a person to commit a crime is
clearly shown, slight acts done in
furtherance of this design will constitute
an attempt, and this court will not destroy
the practical and common sense
administration of the law with subtleties as
to what constitutes preparation, and what an
act done toward the commission of a crime."
Id. at 1112, 81 S.E.2d at 577 (quoting Stokes v. State, 46 So.
627, 629 (Miss. 1908)).
- 2 -
The defendant contends the evidence failed to prove he
intended to maim the victim though the defendant repeatedly
stated that he intended to kill and maim the victim. Such
explicit statements of intention provide piercing insight into
the defendant's state of mind. While stating an intent to kill
and maim, the defendant approached the victim waving a lethal
weapon. He repeatedly raised and lowered it as if he was going
to hit the victim and brought it within inches of the victim's
head. Such evidence permits a finding that the defendant had
the specific intent to commit the crime he vocalized.
The defendant argues the fact that he did not injure the
victim shows he merely wanted him to leave his property. The
victim evaded the defendant and got into his van, but the
defendant never abandoned his attack. The defendant's words and
acts never abated before the victim reached safety and drove for
help. The trial court could find the victim escaped to safety
before the defendant could consummate the crime by cleaving the
victim's head. The defendant's actions "need not be the last
proximate act towards the consummation of the crime in
contemplation." Martin, 195 Va. at 1110, 81 S.E.2d at 576. To
commit an attempt, the defendant did not have to do the last
act, striking the victim with the machete. See Sizemore v.
Commonwealth, 218 Va. 980, 986, 243 S.E.2d 212, 216 (1978).
The Commonwealth's evidence was sufficient to prove
attempted malicious wounding beyond a reasonable doubt. That
- 3 -
conviction also supported the finding that the defendant
violated his probation. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court.
Affirmed.
- 4 -