Alexander Michael Edwards v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 0939163

In Dec. 2013, Alexander Michael Edwards (age 20) tattooed two girls, K.M. (12, learning-disabled) and F.M. (11), against their will using a tattoo gun kept in the home. The girls resisted, were hurt, and the tattoos were permanent.
Appellant had a history of violence in the home and had previously sexually assaulted K.M.; the girls testified they were afraid and felt helpless.
After the tattoos were discovered, law enforcement investigated; Daniel (mother’s boyfriend) attempted to remove the tattoos and appellant was arrested.
While jailed awaiting trial, appellant wrote a letter to inmate Robert Farrar offering $5,000 to have two prosecution witnesses killed and verbally solicited Farrar’s help; Farrar gave the letter to authorities and testified he never intended to assist.
At a bench trial appellant was convicted of two counts of malicious wounding (Code § 18.2-51) and conspiracy to murder (Code § 18.2-22); appeal contested sufficiency of evidence on intent to disfigure and existence of an agreement for conspiracy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Edwards)	Held
Whether evidence proved specific intent to maim, disfigure, disable, or kill for malicious wounding	Tattoos were inflicted maliciously; facts support inference appellant intended to disfigure victims’ appearance	Appellant lacked intent to disfigure—he intended to "put art" on the children, not to maim or disfigure	Affirmed: evidence supported intent to disfigure given force, resistance, pain, permanence, and attendant circumstances
Whether evidence established an agreement necessary for conspiracy to commit murder	Solicitation of Farrar and the written offer constituted an agreement to conspire	No agreement—Farrar never agreed and instead reported the letter to authorities	Reversed and dismissed: no evidence Farrar agreed; conspiracy not proved

Campbell v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 476 (defines need to prove intent to maim/disfigure for malicious wounding)
Banovitch v. Commonwealth, 196 Va. 210 (intent must be proved as a matter of fact; legal presumption insufficient)
Fletcher v. Commonwealth, 209 Va. 636 (malice and intent may be inferred from words, acts, and natural consequences)
Gray v. Commonwealth, 260 Va. 675 (conspiracy completes on agreement; plurality of intent required)
Fortune v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 643 (no conspiracy where alleged co-conspirator intends to foil scheme)