Anthony Deshawn Bethel v. Commonwealth of Virginia
1095161
| Va. Ct. App. | May 2, 2017Background
- Defendant Anthony Bethel forcibly banged on and entered April Evans’s home at night while Evans and her young daughter were inside; he was charged with burglary under Va. Code § 18.2-92.
- At trial, Evans testified about what Bethel yelled at her while trying to gain entry; defense sought to elicit that Bethel said, “They’re trying to kill me.”
- Commonwealth objected to that statement as self-serving hearsay; the circuit court sustained the objection and excluded the testimony.
- Defense proffered the excluded testimony as relevant to Bethel’s state of mind — that he sought refuge and lacked the specific intent to commit a misdemeanor inside the dwelling.
- The Court of Appeals found the statement was not offered for its truth but to show Bethel’s motive/state of mind, so exclusion as hearsay was erroneous and harmful to Bethel’s defense; the court reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Evans’s testimony recounting Bethel saying “They’re trying to kill me” was hearsay and properly excluded | Commonwealth: statement is self‑serving hearsay and inadmissible | Bethel: statement was not offered for its truth but to show his state of mind (intent/motive); alternatively admissible under state‑of‑mind exception | Court: not hearsay in context (offered to show state of mind); exclusion was error |
| Whether exclusion of Bethel’s statement was harmless error | Commonwealth: error, if any, was harmless given other evidence | Bethel: exclusion prevented him from presenting critical evidence negating required criminal intent | Court: error was not harmless because the statement was material to intent defense; reversal required |
| Whether court needed to admit Bethel’s complete statements (verbatim/limiting partial quotation) | Commonwealth: objected to admission of the contested portion | Bethel: incomplete admission by Commonwealth justified completion by defense for context | Court: error to exclude the proffered portion; because error found, court did not rule further on other completeness arguments |
| Sufficiency of evidence that Bethel intended to commit a misdemeanor (element of burglary charge) | Commonwealth: evidence supported burglary conviction | Bethel: generally argued evidence insufficient to prove intent to commit a misdemeanor | Court: declined to address insufficiency claim because parties did not brief whether the alleged misdemeanor (e.g., trespass under § 18.2-121) satisfied the burglary statute; issue not preserved/briefed |
Key Cases Cited
- Holloman v. Commonwealth, 65 Va. App. 147 (discussion of party bearing burden to prove admissibility)
- Bynum v. Commonwealth, 57 Va. App. 487 (trial court evidentiary discretion and abuse‑of‑discretion standard)
- Gonzales v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 375 (same)
- Pope v. Commonwealth, 60 Va. App. 486 (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Adjei v. Commonwealth, 63 Va. App. 727 (definition of hearsay and exceptions)
- Robinson v. Commonwealth, 258 Va. 3 (hearsay inadmissibility absent exception)
- Angel v. Commonwealth, 281 Va. 248 (nonconstitutional harmless‑error standard)
- Turner v. Commonwealth, 284 Va. 198 (harmless‑error application when other evidence overwhelming)