799 S.E.2d 329
Va. Ct. App.2017Background
- Charles Severance was tried and convicted by a jury of three murders (two elevated to capital murder) and related charges; court denied his pretrial motion to sever the Dunning murder from the Kirby and Lodato matters.
- The three killings occurred in Alexandria between 2003 and 2014; all were late-morning residential shootings with no signs of forced entry or robbery and victims found near their front doors.
- Ballistics linked all three scenes to .22 long-rifle Remington subsonic/hollow-point ammunition fired from firearms with eight lands and grooves and right-hand twist; firearms examiners testified the ammunition was highly unusual and seen only in these three cases.
- Direct evidence: eyewitness identification and surveillance connected Severance to the Lodato and Kirby incidents (witnesses, car on video, neighborhood identifications); no eyewitness placed him at the Dunning scene but surveillance and circumstantial evidence were presented.
- Additional circumstantial evidence: Severance’s journals expressing violent intent and revenge against Alexandria ‘‘elites,’’ missing .22 revolvers and ammunition after he left his girlfriend’s residence, and his flight/attempted asylum-seeking after a press conference linking the cases.
- Trial verdict: jury returned guilty verdicts; the court imposed two life sentences for capital murders (Kirby and Lodato), another life for first-degree murder (Dunning), and additional consecutive terms for related offenses. Severance appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Severance) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by denying motion to sever Dunning from Kirby & Lodato | Joinder proper because offenses were part of a common scheme or plan — similar location, timing, unusual ballistics, and motive link justify joint trial | Joinder improper: similarities not sufficiently idiosyncratic; crimes not part of a common plan; severance required for fairness | Court affirmed: crimes were idiosyncratically similar and showed a common scheme and plan; justice did not require separate trials |
| Whether evidence was insufficient to support convictions | Evidence (ballistics, identifications, surveillance, writings, missing weapons, flight) supports identity and guilt beyond reasonable doubt | Challenges identity, especially for Dunning; argued trial should have been separate | Court affirmed: viewed evidence in Commonwealth’s favor, both direct and circumstantial evidence sufficient for jury verdicts |
| Whether sentencing on two counts of capital murder violated double jeopardy | Commonwealth: separate capital-murder convictions valid because Kirby and Lodato were separate murders occurring months apart | Severance: multiple punishments for same conduct because each capital count used the other murder as the predicate act; sentencing for both violates double jeopardy | Court affirmed: Blockburger not implicated; offenses arose from separate acts/transactions so sentencing on both capital counts permitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 636 (definition and test for common scheme vs. common plan)
- Walker v. Commonwealth, 289 Va. 410 (common plan requires offenses to advance a common extrinsic objective)
- Spencer v. Commonwealth, 240 Va. 78 (other-crimes evidence admissible to prove identity/agency)
- Andrews v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 231 (double jeopardy analysis where constituent murders occurred in same act/transaction)
- Coleman v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 196 (double jeopardy applies only where punishments duplicate for same criminal act)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (test for same-act/transaction statutory overlap)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- Lawlor v. Commonwealth, 285 Va. 187 (de novo review of multiple-punishment double jeopardy claims)