Darryl Lamont Hawkins v. Commonwealth of Virginia
1863152
| Va. Ct. App. | Dec 20, 2016Background
- Darryl Lamont Hawkins was indicted for promoting/preparing for dogfighting (Va. Code § 3.2-6571); first trial resulted in a mistrial for nondisclosure; second jury convicted him and sentenced him to four years.
- Search of Hawkins’s property uncovered dogfighting paraphernalia (breeding stand, spring pole, flirt pole, bite stick), weights, dog medicines, dogfighting publications (including an ad for his kennel “Hit Squad Kennels”), and pedigree registrations tied to fighting registries.
- Witness Jermain Trueheart testified Hawkins acted as a referee at local dogfights and discussed selecting puppies for fighting; veterinarian found no fight injuries on the seized dogs. Hawkins denied involvement; several family members testified for him.
- During trial the prosecutor cross-examined Hawkins’s wife about prior protective orders and alleged assaults; after defense objection the court read Hawkins’s prior charges and convictions history to the jury with defense counsel’s agreement.
- In rebuttal closing the prosecutor repeatedly referenced Hawkins’s prior charges (including attempted murder, shootings, assaults) and argued the jury should not let Hawkins be ‘‘found not guilty, just like he was found not guilty’’ before; defense moved for mistrial, which was denied.
- Appellate court found the closing argument comment was improper and prejudicial, requiring reversal and remand for (1) retrial determination and (2) factual finding whether the prosecutor’s conduct was intended to goad Hawkins into moving for mistrial (double jeopardy issue). The court held the evidence was otherwise sufficient to convict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Hawkins) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutor’s cross-examination of wife and court’s reading of prior charges required mistrial | Cross-examination probative of wife’s bias; court’s curative reading remedied error | Cross-exam and court’s later reading were prejudicial and warranted mistrial | Waived by defense—defense counsel agreed to court’s curative approach, so no reversible error on this point |
| Whether prosecutor’s closing argument referencing prior bad acts required mistrial | Closing was proper rebuttal; no prejudice warranting mistrial | Rebuttal improperly injected prior bad acts/propensity; prejudiced jury and required mistrial | Reversed: prosecutor’s closing remark was improper and so prejudicial that denial of mistrial was abuse of discretion |
| Whether prosecutorial misconduct bars retrial under Double Jeopardy (goading standard) | Retrial permissible unless prosecutor intentionally goaded defendant into mistrial | Retrial barred if prosecutor intended to provoke mistrial (Kennedy standard) | Remanded for trial court factual finding on prosecutor’s intent to ‘‘goad’’; appellate court did not decide barring of retrial |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to support conviction for promoting/preparing for dogfighting | Evidence (paraphernalia, publications, ads, witness testimony) established breeding/preparation for fighting | Evidence only showed breeding pit bulls generally; Commonwealth witness not credible | Evidence held sufficient such that retrial would not violate double jeopardy if permitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (1982) (double jeopardy bars retrial when prosecutor intentionally goads defendant into mistrial)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence: whether any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Kitze v. Commonwealth, 246 Va. 283 (1993) (improper statements in argument reversible when likely to remain in jurors’ minds and influence verdict)
- Lewis v. Commonwealth, 269 Va. 209 (2005) (standards for reviewing mistrial motions and effect of cautionary instructions)
- Manns v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 677 (1992) (defendant waives objection by agreeing to trial court’s remedial action)