Johnson v. Commonwealth
58 Va. App. 303
| Va. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Edward Johnson was convicted of malicious wounding under Code § 18.2-51 and maiming by mob under Code § 18.2-41 for a 2009 attack.
- Ammons and James, two Air Force airmen, were assaulted outside a Hampton McDonald's by a group including Johnson.
- Martinez testified he observed Johnson and others attack James and that Johnson struck James; Nixon corroborated a large group attack.
- Detective Sales offered gang-identity expert testimony about 'G-checking' and flagging bandanas in the context of gang activity.
- The trial court found Johnson acted as a principal in the second degree and that a mob mentality formed to assault the airmen.
- Johnson challenged sufficiency of evidence and asserted double jeopardy; the court denied relief and imposed concurrent ten-year sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for malicious wounding | Johnson argues Martinez's testimony is unreliable and causation is lacking. | Commonwealth contends Martinez credible and Johnson caused wounds. | Evidence sufficient; Martinez credibility upheld; Johnson responsible as principal in second degree. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for maiming by mob | Group lacked common purpose to attack; no mob formation proven. | Evidence shows coordinated attack and shared intent to commit violence. | Sufficient evidence of mob assembly and concerted attack; conviction sustained. |
| Double jeopardy between § 18.2-51 and § 18.2-41 | Two convictions for essentially the same act violate double jeopardy. | Statutes have distinct elements; not the same offense under Blockburger. | No double jeopardy; malicious wounding and maiming by mob are distinct offenses. |
Key Cases Cited
- Paiz v. Commonwealth, 54 Va.App. 688 (2009) (malicious wounding and maiming by mob are distinct offenses)
- Hudgins v. Commonwealth, 269 Va. 602 (2005) (Blockburger, element-based distinct offenses when punishment varies)
- Davis v. Commonwealth, 57 Va.App. 446 (2011) (de novo review for double jeopardy and statutory interpretation)
- Coleman v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 196 (2001) (abstract element-focused Blockburger assessment)
- Johnson v. Commonwealth, 184 Va. 409 (1945) (wound defined as breach of skin caused by external violence)
- Harrell v. Commonwealth, 11 Va.App. 1 (1990) (mob formation may be inferred from circumstances)
- Abdullah v. Commonwealth, 53 Va.App. 750 (2009) (group followed victim and attacked; transformation to mob)