Donald Keith Epps v. Commonwealth of Virginia
66 Va. App. 393
Va. Ct. App.2016Background
- Appellant Donald Keith Epps was indicted by a grand jury on Oct. 27, 2014 for abduction and assault & battery; he pled guilty to assault and battery and was tried by bench trial for abduction on Nov. 17, 2014.
- Sentencing occurred Jan. 5, 2015; appellant moved to dismiss on Jan. 7, 2015 claiming the court lacked jurisdiction because the order memorializing the grand jury presentment had not yet been entered.
- The court entered the presentment order on Jan. 13, 2015, denied the motion to dismiss on Jan. 22, 2015, and signed the sentencing order Jan. 23, 2015.
- Factual dispute: victim testified Epps assaulted her in a bedroom (strangling, bending toe, biting finger), she fled toward a kitchen door, and Epps pursued, blocked the door, struck her and said he would not let her leave; the kitchen detention lasted about ten minutes.
- Trial court found Epps guilty of abduction (separate from the earlier assault) and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court lacked jurisdiction because the presentment order was not entered before trial | Commonwealth: Indictment was returned in open court; delayed entry of the order is procedural and does not divest jurisdiction | Epps: Delayed entry of the presentment order meant he was never properly indicted and the court lacked jurisdiction | Court: Timing of entry is procedural; record and later order show indictment returned in open court, so jurisdiction exists and conviction stands |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to sustain abduction conviction when assault & battery also occurred | Commonwealth: Victim was detained after assault, blocked from exiting, and defendant expressly said he would not let her leave, showing detention separate from assault | Epps: Any detention was incidental to assault and not greater than necessary, so cannot support separate abduction charge | Court: Abduction occurred after and apart from the completed assault; restraint in kitchen exceeded that necessary for the assault, so separate conviction is proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Cawood's Case, 4 Va. (2 Va. Cas.) 527 (record entry of indictments required historically) (reversed where defendant's name omitted from order)
- Simmons v. Commonwealth, 89 Va. 156 (historic rule that indictment must be recorded to show presentment)
- Hanson v. Smyth, 183 Va. 384 (statutory waiver of indictment means presentment requirement is not jurisdictional)
- Reed v. Commonwealth, 281 Va. 471 (procedural defects, like missing foreman signature, do not invalidate indictments where record shows return in open court)
- Howard v. Commonwealth, 63 Va. App. 580 (reading indictments aloud not required; presentation in open court is the key fact)
- Weatherman v. Commonwealth, 91 Va. 796 (court orders entered after the day of the proceeding are not rendered invalid by delayed entry)
- Brown v. Commonwealth, 230 Va. 310 (abduction concurrent with another restraint-based crime supports separate penalties only if detention is separate and not merely incidental)
- Lawlor v. Commonwealth, 285 Va. 187 (abduction liability requires detention exceeding minimum necessary for the other offense)