Marquez Rah-Shaun Perkins v. Commonwealth of Virginia
1040151
| Va. Ct. App. | Jan 17, 2017Background
- On March 4, 2014, Otis White visited Benita Perkins’s apartment carrying just over $5,000 in cash and a wallet; Marquez Rah-Shaun Perkins (appellant) and Justin Williams were present.
- White testified appellant asked him for $20; Williams briefly left and later returned; appellant and Williams conferred as White walked by.
- In the apartment parking lot, White saw appellant holding what he believed was a black handgun; moments later Williams struck White and White was hit in the back of the head, rendered unconscious, and his cash and wallet were taken.
- White identified appellant and Williams from photographs; photos taken the next day showed them with large amounts of cash.
- Detective Jones interviewed Williams, who admitted the robbery, said appellant “set up” the robbery, claimed he (Williams) received $100, and said he saw appellant with a black handgun; the trial court admitted Jones’s testimony recounting Williams’s statements over appellant’s confrontation/hearsay objection.
- After a bench trial appellant was convicted of robbery, conspiracy to commit a felony (robbery), malicious wounding, and two counts of use of a firearm in the commission of a felony; this appeal challenges sufficiency of evidence and admission of Williams’s out-of-court statements. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Perkins's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency to prove robbery and conspiracy | White’s eyewitness ID, the sequence of conversations, Williams’s admissions, and post-incident photos showing cash proved conspiracy and robbery | White’s ID was unreliable; lack of forensic evidence or appellant confession undermines proof of participation or agreement | Affirmed — evidence was sufficient for robbery and conspiracy |
| Sufficiency to prove use of a firearm in robbery (Code § 18.2-53.1) | White saw appellant holding what appeared to be a handgun and was struck in the head by that object; statute covers objects that appear to be firearms | Objected to sufficiency of evidence that appellant used or displayed a firearm | Affirmed — testimony supported finding appellant used/displayed a firearm in committing robbery |
| Sufficiency for malicious wounding and firearm use in that offense (Code § 18.2-51) | The blow to White’s head with the gun caused serious injury, supporting malicious wounding and associated firearm count | No evidence of intent to maim, disfigure, disable, or kill; injuries could be from Williams and were not shown to be intended permanent harm | Reversed — evidence insufficient to prove requisite intent for malicious wounding or firearm use in that offense |
| Admissibility of Williams’s hearsay statements / Confrontation Clause | Statements were admissible or, if not, harmless because White’s live testimony was compelling and dispositive | Admission of out-of-court statements violated hearsay rules and appellant’s confrontation rights | Harmless error — even assuming erroneous admission, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given White’s credible testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Riner v. Commonwealth, 268 Va. 296 (discusses appellate standard viewing evidence for the Commonwealth)
- Moore v. Commonwealth, 254 Va. 184 (burden that evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence)
- Ali v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 665 (common-law definition of robbery)
- Combs v. Commonwealth, 30 Va. App. 778 (conspiracy can be inferred from circumstantial evidence; explicit agreement not required)
- Startin v. Commonwealth, 281 Va. 374 (Code § 18.2-53.1 covers objects that have the appearance of a firearm)
- Holloman v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 196 (statutory purpose includes preventing fear caused by objects that appear to be firearms)
- Burkeen v. Commonwealth, 286 Va. 255 (malice and inference of intent may be drawn from acts and conduct)
- Campbell v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 476 (intent to cause permanent disability can be inferred from actions likely to cause it)
- Lilly v. Commonwealth, 258 Va. 548 (harmless-error framework for constitutional evidentiary errors)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (factors for assessing prejudice from Confrontation Clause violations)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause governs admission of testimonial hearsay)