Carlos Matthew Bell v. Commonwealth of Virginia
66 Va. App. 479
| Va. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Appellant Carlos Matthew Bell was convicted by a jury of attempted murder, aggravated malicious wounding, and use of a firearm in the commission of those offenses arising from a January 15, 2014 shooting.
- Prosecution evidence: victim (a confidential informant and confirmed gang member) was shot twice by Bell while walking behind a parked SUV; witnesses and victim’s fiancée testified the victim did not have a gun, made no threatening statement immediately before being shot, and suffered permanent injuries.
- Defense evidence: Bell and several witnesses testified the victim threatened Bell, approached quickly, and displayed or was carrying a gun; one witness testified the victim ran toward the passenger side and may have thrown something into his house after being shot.
- At trial the court instructed the jury on excusable self-defense (self-defense with fault) but refused appellant’s proposed instruction on justifiable self-defense (self-defense without fault), ruling the instruction was incorrect and that giving both would confuse the jury.
- Appellant appealed, arguing the court erred in denying the justifiable self-defense instruction because there was more than a scintilla of evidence supporting it.
- The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding the record contained more than a scintilla of evidence supporting a justifiable self-defense instruction and that the error in refusing it was not harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by refusing to give a jury instruction on justifiable (without-fault) self-defense | Commonwealth: no reasonable jury could accept justifiable self-defense given evidence (notably victim was shot in the back) | Bell: evidence (his testimony plus multiple witnesses) provided more than a scintilla supporting justifiable self-defense | Reversed: court erred in refusing the justifiable self-defense instruction; error was not harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Bailey v. Commonwealth, 200 Va. 92 (distinguishes justifiable vs. excusable self-defense)
- Commonwealth v. Vaughn, 263 Va. 31 (defendant’s uncorroborated testimony insufficient to support alternative instruction)
- Commonwealth v. Cary, 271 Va. 87 (burden of introducing evidence to raise reasonable doubt by self-defense plea)
- Foster v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 380 (standard for viewing evidence in the light most favorable to requesting party)
- Rhodes v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 195 (instructions properly refused if not supported by more than a scintilla of evidence)