Andrew C. Stephens, s/k/a Andrew Charles Stephens v. Commonwealth of Virginia
1432151
| Va. Ct. App. | Oct 25, 2016Background
- Two-and-a-half-month-old infant R.S. was treated from Nov 2–4, 2012 for vomiting, episodes of limpness and gasping; transferred to CHKD with seizure-like activity.
- Imaging and exams showed bilateral subdural hemorrhages, multiple retinal hemorrhages (including retinoschisis), a one-centimeter back bruise, and a recent clavicle fracture; neurosurgeon noted chronic subdural could occur at birth.
- Dr. Susan Lamb (child abuse pediatrician) diagnosed abusive head trauma caused by rotational acceleration/deceleration forces; found no medical history to explain the injuries.
- Appellant admitted to police he shook the infant in his forearms but said he did not intend serious harm; defense experts offered non‑traumatic explanations (apparent life‑threatening event) and biomechanical opinion (Dr. Lloyd), but the court disqualified Dr. Lloyd from testifying as an expert in causation because he was not a medical doctor and the defense failed to proffer his expected testimony.
- A jury convicted appellant of aggravated malicious wounding (Va. Code § 18.2‑51.2); appellant appealed arguing insufficient evidence (causation, identity, malice) and erroneous exclusion of his biomechanics expert.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency — whether evidence excluded reasonable hypotheses of innocence | Evidence did not prove abuse; non‑traumatic causes (apparent life‑threatening event, birth injury, prior eye issue, hospital handling) were reasonable | Medical evidence (Dr. Lamb), imaging, and timeline excluded reasonable innocent theories; jury may credit expert for prosecution | Affirmed — evidence sufficient; jury reasonably rejected alternative hypotheses |
| Causation / Identity — whether appellant caused injuries | No proof appellant, rather than others (mother, godmother), inflicted injury | Appellant had sole custody Fri–Sun; he admitted shaking the infant; timing of symptom onset consistent with his custody | Affirmed — jury could find appellant caused the abusive head trauma |
| Mens rea (malice) — whether conduct was malicious | Even if appellant shook infant, no evidence of malice or intent to injure | Malice may be inferred from intentional wrongful act and the natural consequences of force on a vulnerable infant; appellant’s admission and severity of injuries support inference | Affirmed — sufficient evidence for jury to infer malice |
| Expert qualification / exclusion — whether trial court erred in refusing to qualify Dr. Lloyd | Trial court abused discretion by excluding biomechanics expert (and partly basing objection on unrelated perjury allegation) | Trial court properly limited non‑medical expert from opining on medical causation; defense failed to proffer Dr. Lloyd’s expected testimony to preserve error | Affirmed — appellate review precluded because defense did not make an adequate proffer; exclusion decision within trial court discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for sufficiency review — whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Coleman v. Commonwealth, 226 Va. 31 (circumstantial evidence must exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence)
- Burnette v. Commonwealth, 60 Va. App. 462 (appellate review views evidence in light most favorable to Commonwealth)
- Riner v. Commonwealth, 268 Va. 296 (conflicting expert opinions present questions of fact for the jury)
- Collado v. Commonwealth, 33 Va. App. 356 (sufficient evidence where injury occurred during defendant’s sole custody)
- Hernandez v. Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 626 (malice may be inferred from acts causing injury)
- Conley v. Commonwealth, 273 Va. 554 (trial court discretion governs expert qualification)
- Durant v. Commonwealth, 35 Va. App. 459 (proponent must proffer excluded evidence to preserve claim of error)