Eric William Wandemberg v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 825 S.E.2d 291

Wandemberg and the victim were in a volatile relationship; over several months he committed multiple acts of domestic violence and property damage, including two alleged strangulation incidents (June 24, 2016 and mid‑January 2017).
June 24, 2016: victim testified Wandemberg grabbed and squeezed her neck, causing difficulty breathing, abrasions on her neck, a large bump on her temple, bruising and headaches; phone was broken during the incident (disputed).
Mid‑January 2017: victim testified Wandemberg straddled her, put both hands on her neck, choked her until her face and lips went numb and her neck hurt and was red.
Police interviews: Wandemberg admitted physical altercations and demonstrated holding his hands to the neck but blamed some injuries on the victim or mutual violence; he gave conflicting accounts about who broke the victim’s phone.
Bench trial: circuit court convicted Wandemberg of two counts of strangulation, two counts of misdemeanor assault and battery, misdemeanor property damage (to the door), and interfering with a 911 call (related to the phone). Circuit court acquitted him of misdemeanor property damage for the phone, finding the evidence conflicting.
On appeal Wandemberg challenged (1) sufficiency of evidence for strangulation convictions (claiming no bodily injury shown) and (2) sufficiency of evidence for interfering with a 911 call because the trial court found it could not determine who damaged the phone.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency for strangulation convictions under Va. Code § 18.2‑51.6 (bodily injury element)	Commonwealth: victim’s testimony and injuries (abrasions, numbness, difficulty breathing, red neck, head knots) satisfy the statutory "bodily injury" requirement.	Wandemberg: no bodily injury from choking; injuries were not shown to be caused by the choking; no loss of consciousness or observable injury tied to strangulation.	Affirmed: Court held Ricks’ broad definition applies—impairment (e.g., numbness, inability to breathe, abrasions, pain) qualifies as bodily injury; evidence supported both strangulation convictions.
Sufficiency for interfering with a 911 call under Va. Code § 18.2‑164(B)(2) (must disable/destroy device)	Commonwealth: victim credible that phone was taken/destroyed and that act prevented summoning help.	Wandemberg: circuit court expressly found it could not determine who broke the phone; without proof he disabled/destroyed the phone, the interference charge cannot stand.	Reversed and dismissed: conviction required proof that defendant disabled or destroyed the phone; the court’s acquittal on phone‑damage and lack of explanation made the interference conviction legally insufficient and inconsistent.

Ricks v. Commonwealth, 290 Va. 470 (Supreme Court of Virginia) (broad definition of "bodily injury" under § 18.2‑51.6 includes impairment of bodily function and need not be visible wounds)
English v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 711 (Court of Appeals of Virginia) (internal injuries and impairments fall within § 18.2‑51.6 bodily‑injury scope)
Akers v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 521 (Court of Appeals of Virginia) (bench‑trial verdicts cannot be inconsistent where acquittal on an element is necessary to conviction on another count)