Donte Demille Hampton v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 1842231

Donte Hampton was convicted by a jury of malicious wounding, attempted malicious wounding, two counts of use of a firearm during a felony, shooting into an occupied dwelling, and conspiracy for the same in Hampton, Virginia.
The prosecution's case centered on Hampton's threats and actions after a night of conflict, culminating with him and two armed associates firing into a barricaded bedroom where Kwama and his brother Kwame sought refuge.
Both victims testified Hampton wielded and fired a gun, and that he orchestrated the attack and directed the shooters.
At trial, Hampton sought to introduce a DNA certificate of analysis without summoning the analyst and without statutory notice; the trial court excluded it.
Hampton sought jury instructions on lesser-included assault and battery, castled doctrine, and flight after crime; the trial court issued or denied as described below.
The appellate court affirmed all convictions, finding no legal error in the trial court’s evidentiary, instructional, or sufficiency rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Denial of lesser-included assault/battery	Should have been instructed due to allegedly ambiguous evidence	No credible evidence to support lesser offense; all evidence showed malice	Instruction was properly denied
Duty to retreat (Castle doctrine)	Instruction on no duty to retreat was improperly given	Kwama, not Hampton, was the aggressor; no duty existed	Not considered: instruction never read to jury
Flight from scene instruction	Flight instruction improper as Hampton had no duty to remain	Considered relevant for jury; fleeing is evidence	Instruction proper
Sufficiency of evidence for conviction	Not enough evidence Hampton had/used a gun or intended to wound	Ample evidence in testimony and corroboration	Evidence sufficient for conviction
Admission of DNA certificate	Should have been admitted; sufficient notice via Commonwealth	Statutory notice not given, no witness available	Properly excluded

Commonwealth v. Vaughn, 263 Va. 31 (Instruction on lesser-included offense only required if supported by affirmative evidence)
Fletcher v. Commonwealth, 72 Va. App. 493 (Malice inferred from use of deadly weapon)
Burkeen v. Commonwealth, 286 Va. 255 (Malicious wounding requires intent to permanently harm)
Thomas v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 131 (Explains principal in the first and second degree liability)
Washington v. Commonwealth, 43 Va. App. 291 (Aiding and abetting principles for criminal liability)