Denit Antoinette Hall v Commonwealth of Virginia
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judge Bray, Senior Judges Duff and Overton Argued at Alexandria, Virginia DENITA ANTOINETTE HALL v. Record No. 0642-98-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY JUDGE RICHARD S. BRAY APRIL 13, 1999 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA John E. Kloch, Judge Jonathan D. Westreich for appellant. Leah A. Darron, Assistant Attorney General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. Denita Antoinette Hall (defendant) was convicted in a bench trial for unlawfully wounding Sylvester Davis (Davis), a violation of Code § 18.2-51. On appeal, defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction, proving, instead, self-defense as a matter of law. We disagree and affirm the conviction. The parties are fully conversant with the record, and this memorandum opinion recites only those facts necessary to a disposition of the appeal. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider the record in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code § 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication. granting to it all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom, Martin v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 438, 443, 358 S.E.2d 415, 418 (1987), discarding all conflicting evidence of the accused. See Lea v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 300, 303, 429 S.E.2d 477, 479 (1993) (citation omitted). The credibility of witnesses, the weight accorded testimony, and the inferences to be drawn from proven facts are matters to be determined by the fact finder. See Long v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 194, 199, 379 S.E.2d 473, 476 (1989). The judgment of a trial court will be disturbed on appeal only if plainly wrong or without support in the record. See Code § 8.01-680. Here, the evidence established that defendant and Davis had engaged in a violent relationship for approximately twelve years, during which they cohabited and produced five children. When Commonwealth witness Warren Hinton arrived at their home during the early afternoon of October 2, 1997, defendant was arguing at [Davis] about something. Hinton watched as defendant snatched a burning cigarette . . . [and] beer . . . out of [Davis ] hand, and Davis smushed (PHONETIC) her head. Hinton turned around and left but reentered the house [a]bout a minute later. Upon returning, Hinton found defendant hysterical, armed with a knife in her raised right hand, and facing Davis, then holding a chair at his abdomen section[,] . . . swinging it out. When Hinton heard defendant warn Davis I told you what was going - 2 - to happen the next time you hit me . . . [or] put your hands on me, Hinton yelled . . . and asked why was they doing that. Davis dropped the chair, and defendant stabbed him. At trial, Davis, testifying as a defense witness, recalled that, while he was trying to hit [defendant] with the chair, . . . trying to hit her in the head, defendant had a knife . . . [and] was defending herself. He dropped the chair, lung[ing] at her forward . . . because [he] thought [he] could take the knife from her[,] . . . [and] was stabbed. However, during a hospital interview with Detective William Scott immediately following the incident, Davis stated that him and [defendant] had been arguing, and [defendant] went into the kitchen and came out with a knife, and that s when he grabbed the chair, and he held it up in front of him to protect himself. Defendant testified that Davis had been drinking heavily and started screaming . . . about . . . the telephone bill. An argument ensued, and Davis mudged (PHONETIC) and slapped [defendant] in [her] face. He then pick[ed] up [a] metal chair, . . . chased [defendant] down the hallway . . . towards the kitchen, and swung [the chair], . . . hit[ting] the back of [her] leg. Defendant picked . . . up a steak knife, to keep [Davis] back. Davis suddenly dropped the chair, and attacked defendant with his hands, proceeding to choke [her]. Defendant recalled that she was terrified and took the knife and . . . - 3 - popped him in the chest. When confronted with a prior inconsistent statement, also given to Detective Scott, defendant explained that she was scared, . . . hysterical, . . . tried to minimize what happened, . . . and . . . didn t want to be blamed for it. In convicting defendant of unlawful wounding, the trial judge concluded that the only totally credible witness is Mr. Hinton, . . . [who] was motivated towards the Defendant, if anyone, . . . was largely unimpeached . . ., and . . . [was] supported almost totally by the physical evidence. The court noted that Mr. Davis credibility is seriously questioned . . . [because] [h]e was drunk when it happened, . . . changed his story a number of times, and [testified] inconsistent[ly] with the physical evidence[,] . . . [and] Mr. Hinton s testimony. Similarly, the trial judge discounted defendant s testimony, observing that she admitted telling lies and had an obvious interest in the case. It is well established that a person who reasonably apprehends bodily harm by another is privileged to exercise reasonable force to repel the assault. Diffendal v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 417, 421, 382 S.E.2d 24, 25 (1989) (citations omitted). However, such force shall not, except in extreme cases, endanger human life or do great bodily harm. at 421, 382 S.E.2d at 26 (citation omitted). Id. Self-defense is an affirmative defense which the accused must prove by introducing - 4 - sufficient evidence to raise a reasonable doubt about his guilt. Smith v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 68, 71, 435 S.E.2d 414, 416 (1993) (citation omitted). Whether an accused proves circumstances sufficient to create a reasonable doubt that he acted in self-defense is a question of fact. Id. (citation omitted). Here, the evidence disclosed that a violent argument erupted between defendant and Davis after defendant snatched a cigarette and beer from Davis hand, and Davis smushed defendant s head. Defendant armed herself with a knife and confronted Davis, warning him, I told you what was going to happen the next time you hit me. Davis held a chair against his person to protect himself from defendant, but she popped him in the chest when he lowered it. Such circumstances support the trial court s finding that defendant stabbed Davis with intent to maim, disfigure, disable or kill him unlawfully, unaided by the privilege of self-defense. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction. Affirmed. - 5 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
