Edgardo Roman Guevara v. Commonwealth of Virginia
1250234
Va. Ct. App.Mar 11, 2025Background
- Edgardo Roman Guevara was convicted by a jury of two counts of malicious wounding after attacking two men, Daniel Miranda Suarez and Renzo Linares Aguilar, with a knife in Dora Kelley Nature Park, Alexandria.
- The incident occurred at night when Miranda and Linares went to meet a friend to smoke marijuana and, instead, encountered Guevara and Cesar Loza Castillo.
- Guevara attacked Linares from behind with a knife; both Guevara and Loza then stabbed Miranda multiple times, causing significant bodily harm and permanent scarring.
- Guevara admitted being present and participating in a stabbing, though he denied attacking one of the victims.
- At trial, Guevara moved to strike, arguing insufficient evidence of identity and lack of injury permanence; both motions were denied.
- On appeal, Guevara only challenged his conviction for the malicious wounding of Miranda, focusing on the insufficiency and credibility of the identification evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Evidence on Malice | Guevara's actions were in heat of passion, not malice. | Commonwealth: This issue not preserved for appeal under Rule 5A:18. | Not considered; issue not preserved at trial. |
| Sufficiency of Evidence—Identity | Insufficient, inconsistent, and uncredible victim ID of Guevara as assailant. | Commonwealth: Sufficient evidence, including ID, testimony, and admissions. | Evidence was sufficient; jury verdict affirmed. |
| Credibility of Witnesses | Victims' stories inconsistent; identification uncertain; past encounters at issue. | Commonwealth: Jury is arbiter of credibility; testimony not inherently false. | Jury entitled to determine credibility; conviction upheld. |
| Correction of Scrivener’s Error | Order omitted details about defendant's evidence and renewed motion to strike. | Not disputed. | Remanded to correct order under Code § 8.01-428(B). |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Cady, 300 Va. 325 (2021) (reiterates the standard for reviewing facts on appeal in light most favorable to Commonwealth)
- Kelley v. Commonwealth, 289 Va. 463 (2015) (describes rule for appellate review of facts)
- Smith v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 450 (2018) (sets standard for appellate review of sufficiency of evidence)
- Juniper v. Commonwealth, 271 Va. 362 (2006) (addresses when testimony is inherently incredible)
- Elliott v. Commonwealth, 277 Va. 457 (2009) (addresses jury's role in weighing credibility)