Bruce Edison Parham v. Commonwealth of Virginia
64 Va. App. 560
Va. Ct. App.2015Background
- Bruce Parham was indicted on a felony more than seven weeks before attempting to purchase a firearm; he had a circuit court appearance 12 days before the purchase and the case was continued.
- At Bass Pro Shops Parham completed the federal firearm transaction form and answered "no" to whether he was under indictment for a crime punishable by >1 year.
- Store clerk Reynolds testified purchasers fill out their own forms; Parham initially told Trooper Stokes the clerk filled it out for him, then later said he marked "no" on everything per the clerk’s instruction, and on cross admitted he read the indictment question but claimed not to know the meaning of "indictment."
- Trooper Stokes testified Parham admitted his case was still "pending." A continuance order confirmed Parham’s circuit court appearance 12 days before the attempted purchase.
- Parham moved to strike, arguing Commonwealth failed to prove he actually knew he was under indictment; the trial court denied the motion and convicted him under Va. Code § 18.2-308.2:2(K). The sentence was five years, all suspended.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Parham) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proved Parham "willfully and intentionally" made a materially false statement by denying he was under indictment | Circumstantial evidence (court appearances, continuance order, inconsistent statements, admission case was "pending") supports inference Parham knew he was indicted | Parham lacked actual knowledge of indictment; he did not understand the term and acted on clerk’s direction or failed to read carefully | Affirmed: evidence sufficient to infer actual knowledge and willful intent |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Commonwealth, 282 Va. 449 (Supreme Court of Virginia) (requires proof defendant had actual knowledge that statement was false)
- Maldonado-Mejia v. Commonwealth, 287 Va. 49 (Supreme Court of Virginia) (circumstantial evidence can show defendant knew they were under indictment)
- Ridley v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 834 (Supreme Court of Virginia) (intent may be inferred from facts and circumstances)
- Chambliss v. Commonwealth, 62 Va. App. 459 (Court of Appeals of Virginia) (circumstantial evidence is as competent as direct evidence)