Holcomb v. Commonwealth
58 Va. App. 339
| Va. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Holcomb challenges sufficiency of evidence for knowingly communicating a written threat under Code § 18.2-60(A)(1).
- Rollman, the victim, had a prior romantic relationship with Holcomb and a custody dispute with restraining orders involved.
- Several printouts from Holcomb’s MySpace profile were admitted at trial, containing graphic threats.
- Posts referenced Rollman by maiden name and described specific incidents from their custody dispute, including threats to stab, slit necks, and murder fantasies.
- Rollman testified she feared for her life and her daughter and moved to her parents’ home after viewing the posts; Holcomb argued the posts were art/lyrics intended for public viewing, not threats.
- Trial court found a nexus between the custody dispute and the posts, concluding they were veiled threats; conviction for communicating a threat was entered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether posting on MySpace constitutes communication of a threat | Holcomb argues no direct communication to Rollman. | Holcomb argues posts were public lyrics, not directed threats. | Yes; posting on MySpace constitutes an electronically transmitted communication of a threat. |
| Whether the posts constitute threats under 18.2-60(A)(1) given context | Posts are threats due to graphic, violent content linked to Rollman. | Posts are lyrics/art not true threats. | Yes; the posts, viewed in context, constitute threats. |
| Whether Rollman’s reaction supports reasonable apprehension of death or bodily harm | Reaction evidence supports threat credibility. | Reaction is not necessary to prove threat. | Yes; Rollman’s fear and relocation showed reasonable apprehension. |
Key Cases Cited
- Summerlin v. Commonwealth, 37 Va.App. 288 (Va. App. 2002) (recognizes that the threat need not be carried out to be actionable and considers context of communication)
- Wise v. Commonwealth, 49 Va.App. 344 (Va. App. 2007) (acknowledges context and potential non-direct threats under 18.2-60)
- Keyes v. Commonwealth, 39 Va.App. 294 (Va. App. 2002) (threats may be veiled; context matters)
- United States v. Kelner, 534 F.2d 1020 (2d Cir. 1976) (broadcast of threat to broad audience can still be a communication if intended to threaten)