Choon Poong Lee v. Commonwealth of Virginia
68 Va. App. 313
| Va. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Appellant Choon Poong Lee entered a homeowner's residence during daytime after prying a basement window open with a screwdriver; he wore gloves, sunglasses, and covered his face with a towel inside the house.
- Inside, Lee threatened and cut the victim with the screwdriver, removed her clothing, sexually assaulted her, and demanded money; the victim surrendered a wallet with about $2,000.
- Police stopped Lee later that day; after initially lying he admitted entering to get money, said he used the screwdriver to get through the window, and told detectives the screwdriver was to “make [her] threaten.”
- Lee was convicted of multiple offenses, including statutory burglary enhanced for being armed with a deadly weapon; on appeal he challenged only the deadly-weapon enhancement.
- The narrow legal dispute: whether a non–per se deadly instrument (a screwdriver) may be classified as a deadly weapon for purposes of burglary based on the possessor’s intent and subsequent use at or after entry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a non–per se instrument (screwdriver) may be treated as a deadly weapon for enhanced burglary liability based on intent/use at time of entry | Lee: Screwdriver is not per se deadly and, for burglary, its use inside the home is irrelevant because burglary was complete on entry; at most it was a burglar’s tool | Commonwealth: Manner of use and statements/actions before and after entry are relevant to show intent to use the object as a weapon and therefore make it a deadly weapon | The court affirmed: the factfinder may consider conduct and statements before and after entry; the screwdriver was properly found to be a deadly weapon based on intent and use |
Key Cases Cited
- Pannill v. Commonwealth, 185 Va. 244, 38 S.E.2d 457 (recognizing non–per se instruments may be deadly depending on manner of use)
- Pritchett v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 927, 252 S.E.2d 352 (burden on Commonwealth to prove non–per se weapon was deadly by manner of use and intent)
- Rashad v. Commonwealth, 50 Va. App. 528, 651 S.E.2d 407 (purpose of burglary-enhancement statutes to protect occupants and consider danger created by armed intruders)
- Simon v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 194, 708 S.E.2d 245 (a defendant’s intent can be proven by conduct and statements made after the criminal acts)
- Jones v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 295, 687 S.E.2d 738 (standard for reciting facts in light most favorable to the Commonwealth on appellate review)