Hines v. Commonwealth
791 S.E.2d 563
| Va. | 2016Background
- Marvin Hines shot Wayne Hudson in Hines’ home after an altercation in which Hudson, who had been drinking and was belligerent, allegedly brandished a gun. Hines retrieved his own gun from another room and returned to the room where Hudson was.
- Hines testified Hudson pointed the gun at him when Hines reentered the room; eyewitness Matt Thomas did not observe a gun but had earlier told police he thought Hudson had one.
- At a bench trial the court found Hines credible but concluded he was not entitled to self-defense because he had retreated to another room and then returned armed; the court convicted Hines of voluntary manslaughter and, after an amendment to the indictment, of unlawfully shooting another in the commission of a felony (Code § 18.2-53).
- The Court of Appeals denied Hines’ petition for appeal. Hines appealed to the Supreme Court of Virginia, challenging the rejection of his self-defense claim and the indictment amendment.
- The Supreme Court reviewed the record de novo for legal error and the trial court’s factual findings for support, and concluded the trial court’s legal conclusion rejecting self-defense was plainly wrong.
Issues
| Issue | Hines’ Argument | Commonwealth’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hines proved self-defense | Hines contends he reasonably feared imminent death or serious harm when Hudson pointed a gun at him after Hines reentered the room | Commonwealth argued Hines could not claim self-defense because he had retreated to another room and then armed himself before returning | Court held Hines established self-defense: credible testimony and other evidence showed Hudson pointed a gun at Hines, creating imminent danger; trial court’s contrary legal conclusion was unsupported |
| Whether amendment of the indictment was erroneous | Hines argued the amendment (substituting Code § 18.2-53) was improper | Commonwealth argued the amendment did not change nature/character of the offense | Court did not reach this issue after resolving self-defense; conviction vacated and case reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- McGhee v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 560, 248 S.E.2d 808 (defendant must reasonably fear death or serious bodily harm for self-defense)
- Fortune v. Commonwealth, 133 Va. 669, 112 S.E. 861 (owner/occupant in dwelling not obliged to retreat; may use necessary force to repel assailant)
- Commonwealth v. Cary, 271 Va. 87, 623 S.E.2d 906 (imminence for self-defense requires an overt act or circumstance creating immediate threat)