Carter v. Commonwealth
800 S.E.2d 498
| Va. | 2017Background
- Victim Jennifer Johnson was shot and killed in her bedroom on January 14, 2014; a single bullet killed her and a .38 shell casing was recovered in the bedroom. Medical evidence indicated an intermediate-range shot; no soot on hands.
- Defendant Cordell Carter had an on‑again/off‑again relationship with the victim; they argued at her house shortly before the shooting. Carter left the bedroom and shortly thereafter the victim was found mortally wounded.
- Carter testified he acted in self‑defense, claiming the victim threatened him and reached for a gun; his accounts of how the gun discharged changed during testimony and conflicted with physical evidence.
- Defense sought to introduce testimony that the victim made threats the day before the shooting (via Monaghan) and evidence of prior violent acts by the victim; the trial court excluded some proffers (older incidents) and excluded Monaghan’s threat testimony as irrelevant to Carter’s reasonable fear because it was not communicated to him.
- After trial, a defense witness (Showalter) proffered testimony inconsistent with his in‑court statements; Carter sought a new trial based on that proffer but did not timely treat Showalter as adverse or move for a mistrial when the testimony first surprised him.
- Carter objected post‑submission to an emotional line in the Commonwealth’s closing argument but did not request a mistrial or corrective instruction; convictions for first‑degree murder and use of a firearm were affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Carter's Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of threat evidence (Monaghan’s proffer that victim threatened Carter the day before) | Relevant to self‑defense; showed victim’s propensity for violence and initial aggressor | Threat was not communicated to Carter, so irrelevant to what he reasonably feared at the time | Exclusion (even if error) was harmless given overwhelming evidence of guilt |
| Admission of prior violent acts by victim (time limit on incidents) | Court erred by excluding older incidents (e.g., 2008–2009, 10 years prior stabbing, 2013 jaw injury) as character evidence for violence | Trial court properly limited acts to those sufficiently connected in time/circumstance; defendant admitted lack of foundation for some incidents | Trial court acted within discretion; exclusion affirmed |
| Motion to set aside verdict based on witness (Showalter) allegedly false testimony | Showalter’s post‑trial proffer contradicted his in‑court testimony; verdict should be set aside/new trial warranted | Carter failed to timely treat Showalter as hostile, make a proffer, or move for mistrial when testimony surprised him; issue waived | Waived for failure to timely raise and preserved; motion denied |
| Prosecutor’s closing argument ("evil triumphs") | Statement was purely emotional and improper; warranted relief | Objection not timely; no mistrial requested; comments not sufficiently inflammatory | Issue waived for failure to request mistrial or instruction; no reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 380 (appellate review standard and stating facts in light most favorable to Commonwealth)
- Hines v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 674 (self‑defense elements: reasonable fear judged from defendant’s viewpoint)
- Workman v. Commonwealth, 272 Va. 633 (victim’s violent character evidence admissible to show aggressor; admissible even if defendant unaware)
- Barnes v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 24 (specific acts admissible to show decedent’s turbulent violent character when self‑defense claimed)
- Teleguz v. Commonwealth, 273 Va. 458 (witness may be declared hostile if testimony surprises calling party)
- Yeatts v. Commonwealth, 242 Va. 121 (timely mistrial motion required to preserve objection to prosecutorial misconduct in closing)
- Maxwell v. Commonwealth, 287 Va. 258 (failure to make timely mistrial motion waives appellate review)
- Shifflett v. Commonwealth, 289 Va. 10 (harmless error standard for non‑constitutional evidentiary errors)
- Clay v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 253 (harmless‑error test: error is harmless if it did not influence the jury or had only slight effect)