Alfred Banks, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia
67 Va. App. 273
| Va. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Banks and D.B. met at a Richmond clinic in 1990; they were not friends and D.B. never gave him personal contact details.
- Banks sent unsolicited letters and repeatedly called D.B. after she moved; she repeatedly told him to stop and law enforcement intervened in the 1990s.
- After a long hiatus, Banks again approached D.B. in her workplace parking lot in April 2014, persisted after she told him to leave, and she felt scared and intimidated.
- A jury convicted Banks of misdemeanor stalking under Va. Code § 18.2-60.3; he received a 12‑month jail sentence, six months suspended.
- On appeal Banks argued: (1) the trial court should have limited or excluded evidence of his prior contacts and refused his proposed jury instructions; (2) the evidence was time-barred by the one‑year statute of limitations; and (3) the evidence was insufficient to show he caused D.B. to experience reasonable fear.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility / jury instructions on prior contacts | Commonwealth: prior contacts are probative of elements, including "on more than one occasion" | Banks: earlier contacts outside the one‑year window should be limited to impeachment/motive or excluded | Court: prior contacts admissible to prove any element (including "on more than one occasion"); refused Banks' limiting instructions |
| Statute of limitations (one‑year) | Banks: elements must occur within one year; earlier contacts render prosecution stale | Commonwealth: statute runs when offense is complete (2014); earlier contacts can form part of the offense | Court: offense completed in April 2014; statute began then; earlier contacts may be used to establish the multi‑occasion element |
| Sufficiency — multiple occasions within alleged time | Banks: warrant alleged specific April 2014 dates; Commonwealth failed to prove multiple contacts in that timeframe | Commonwealth: proof may show offense on dates different from warrant; dates need not be identical | Court: sufficiency judged on whether any rational jury could find elements; evidence supported multiple occasions as element irrespective of precise warrant dates |
| Sufficiency — reasonable fear element | Banks: long gap and lack of explicit threats undermine objective fear | Commonwealth: cumulative persistence, prior escalation, and ability to locate victim suffice to show objective fear | Court: jury reasonably could find D.B. experienced objective fear; evidence sufficient to support conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Cooper v. Commonwealth, 277 Va. 377 (discretion in jury instruction rulings)
- Sarafin v. Commonwealth, 288 Va. 320 (de novo review of legal accuracy of instructions)
- Stephens v. Rose, 288 Va. 150 (elements and objective‑fear standard for stalking)
- Parker v. Commonwealth, 24 Va. App. 681 (stalking elements and fear need not be particularized)
- Raja v. Commonwealth, 40 Va. App. 710 (stalking involves multiple instances; dates need not be narrowly charged)
- Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112 (statute‑of‑limitations principles; offense completion rule)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- Maxwell v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 437 (application of Jackson sufficiency standard)