Justin Lee Lunceford v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 1234151

Justin Lunceford and Brandi Jankosky had a long-term relationship, shared a son, and frequently argued during custody exchanges; she was financially dependent on him.
On March 15, 2014, after placing their son in Jankosky’s car in a Wal-Mart parking lot, Lunceford got into the front passenger seat and argued with her for over an hour, pressuring her for future sex.
Jankosky repeatedly asked him to leave; she at one point tried to exit but was told by Lunceford “not to make a scene.” He grabbed her arm once; she said she believed he was only trying to get her attention.
Their son cried during the argument; Lunceford threatened to spank him. Jankosky said she stayed in the car to avoid escalating into a public fight and to keep their son out of the middle, and testified she was “not scared of him.”
At the end of the encounter, Lunceford took Jankosky’s phone; she retrieved it, hit him, and both left separately. She reported the incident three months later; Lunceford was convicted of abduction under Va. Code § 18.2-47(A).
At trial, the judge denied motions to strike, reasoning Jankosky was effectively detained in her own vehicle with the child present; the court convicted Lunceford, but the Court of Appeals reversed.

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Lunceford's Argument	Held
Whether detention occurred by intimidation under Va. Code § 18.2-47(A)	Jankosky’s remaining in the car to avoid a public escalation amounted to intimidation detaining her; factfinder could infer fear from prior domestic incidents	Jankosky stayed for non-intimidation reasons (to avoid a scene, economic dependence); she testified she wasn’t scared and could have left	Reversed — evidence insufficient to show intimidation overbore her will
Whether prior domestic violence supported inferring fear despite victim’s denial	Prior domestic violence permits the factfinder to discredit victim’s claim of not being afraid	Prior incidents are ambiguous and not shown to be one-sided; speculation cannot substitute for evidence	Court held past references didn’t support a reasonable inference of fear here
Whether fear for the child justified finding intimidation	Commonwealth suggested she may have remained fearing harm to the son	Defense noted no testimony that she feared for the child; she said she stayed to avoid a scene	Court found no testimony supporting fear for the child; argument raised too late and unsupported
Whether appellate standard requires affirming bench verdict	Commonwealth argued credibility/inferences favor affirmance	Defense argued evidence legally insufficient as a matter of law	Court applied Jackson standard and reversed — no reasonable inference of intimidation

Sutton v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 654 (defining "intimidation" as inducing fear of bodily harm that overbears the will)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
Williams v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 190 (appellate review standard for bench trials)
Powell v. Commonwealth, 289 Va. 20 (view evidence in light most favorable to prevailing party)
Breeden v. Commonwealth, 43 Va. App. 169 (factfinder may discredit victim’s testimony where contradicted)
Cairns v. Commonwealth, 40 Va. App. 271 (prior violence can inform victim’s fear of bodily harm)