Justin Thomas Meade v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 872 S.E.2d 240

On Oct. 25, 2020 Meade’s car overheated at a Days Inn; he retrieved a handgun after noticing David Hunter Wills with a gun and an exchange of accusations.
A physical altercation ensued: Meade was knocked down and beaten; both men had firearms and a shot rang out causing people to scatter.
Wills ran toward and entered a motel room; while Wills was retreating/entering the room, Meade fired two shots in Wills’ direction and later drove away after being shot at.
Meade testified he fired only to “get [Wills] away from me” and conceded Wills was “away” when Meade fired; surveillance video was admitted at trial.
The bench trial acquitted Meade of attempted murder, attempted malicious wounding, and related firearm charges, but convicted him of maliciously shooting at an occupied building (Va. Code § 18.2‑279); the trial court found no self‑defense and that Meade acted maliciously rather than in heat of passion.
Meade appealed, arguing (1) his shots were justified self‑defense, (2) the verdicts were inconsistent, and (3) the evidence at least showed heat of passion (requiring the lesser offense). The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Meade's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether evidence required a self‑defense acquittal	Meade: his shots were in self‑defense because he had been beaten, hit by a car, and had a gun pointed at him	Commonwealth: Wills was retreating into the motel and no longer posed an imminent threat when Meade fired	Court: No reversible error — trial court reasonably found no imminent danger when shots were fired, so self‑defense was rejected
Whether bench acquittals on attempt charges make conviction for shooting at an occupied building inconsistent	Meade: acquittal of attempted murder/attempted malicious wounding (specific‑intent crimes) should preclude conviction for malicious shooting	Commonwealth: §18.2‑279 is a general‑intent offense; it lacks the specific intent element required for attempt offenses	Court: Not inconsistent — different elements; acquittals on specific‑intent attempts are compatible with conviction under general‑intent §18.2‑279
Whether the evidence required conviction of the lesser unlawful (heat‑of‑passion) offense instead of malicious shooting	Meade: his actions flowed from heat of passion after assault and vehicle strike, negating malice	Commonwealth: malice may be inferred from deliberate use of a deadly weapon and Meade’s testimony showed calculation to “get him away”	Court: Evidence supported trial court’s factual finding of malice (deliberate act), so conviction for malicious shooting stands

Gerald v. Commonwealth, 295 Va. 469 (appellate review principles; view facts in light most favorable to Commonwealth)
Secret v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 204 (standard for whether any rational trier could find elements beyond reasonable doubt)
Hines v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 674 (imminent danger requirement for self‑defense)
Avent v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 175 (a defendant can forfeit self‑defense if perceived threat ends before the lethal act)
Akers v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 521 (bench trials generally may not render inconsistent verdicts)
Ellis v. Commonwealth, 281 Va. 499 (§18.2‑279 is a general‑intent statute; shooter’s motive not required)
Coles v. Commonwealth, 270 Va. 585 (attempted murder requires specific intent to kill)
Strickland v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 180 (malicious shooting conviction sustainable even when shot not aimed at a person due to danger to occupants)