1048251
Va. Ct. App.Jul 28, 2026Background
- Laura Miles disappeared after a morning phone call with her husband abruptly ended with her screaming, and she was later found dead behind a YMCA near her apartment. 1
- Police found Laura’s truck nearby, her bag in the parking lot, and surveillance footage placing Raheem Cherry in the area and near the truck that morning. 2
- Investigators found Laura had 11 stab wounds, abrasions and bruising consistent with dragging, and her death was caused by a neck stab wound. 3
- Cherry gave inconsistent accounts to detectives, admitted touching the truck and later helping move the body and clean the truck, and wrote a statement describing the killing and concealment. 4
- The jury convicted Cherry of first-degree murder, concealment of a dead body, robbery, and abduction, and the trial court denied his motions to strike and to set aside the verdict. 5
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cherry’s first two assignments of error were waived 6 | Cherry challenged the jury’s sufficiency findings | The assignments failed to identify trial-court error | Waived under Rule 5A:20(c)(2) 7 |
| Whether evidence proved first-degree murder 8 | No proof Cherry killed Laura or acted with malice and premeditation | Circumstantial evidence showed Cherry stabbed, killed, and concealed Laura | Sufficient evidence supported the conviction 9 |
| Whether evidence proved concealment of a dead body 10 | No time of death meant Laura may not have been dead when concealed | Her condition and stab wounds allowed a reasonable conclusion she was dead | Sufficient evidence supported the conviction 11 |
| Whether evidence proved robbery and abduction 12 | No intent to steal or to deprive Laura of liberty | Cherry used violence to take property and transport Laura | Sufficient evidence supported both convictions 13 |
Key Cases Cited
- Hammer v. Commonwealth, 74 Va. App. 225 (2022) (sufficiency review views evidence in light most favorable to Commonwealth 14)
- Commonwealth v. Cady, 300 Va. 325 (2021) (appellate courts credit Commonwealth-favorable evidence and inferences 15)
- Barnes v. Commonwealth, 80 Va. App. 588 (2024) (assignments of error must identify a trial-court ruling 16)
- Fisher v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 296 (1984) (verdict sustained unless plainly wrong or unsupported 17)
- Coomer v. Commonwealth, 67 Va. App. 537 (2017) (statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo 18)
- Vasquez v. Commonwealth, 291 Va. 232 (2016) (question is whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt 19)
- Clay v. Commonwealth, 33 Va. App. 96 (2000) (elements of first-degree murder 20)
- Tizon v. Commonwealth, 60 Va. App. 1 (2012) (malice may be inferred from deliberate use of a deadly weapon 21)
- Clozza v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 124 (1984) (premeditation may be inferred from brutality, concealment, and efforts to avoid detection 22)
- Morris v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 575 (1995) (mortal wound with little provocation can support premeditation inference 23)
- Shaw v. Commonwealth, 304 Va. 217 (2025) (concealment statute does not require proof of time of death where body condition shows death 24)
- Doulgerakis v. Commonwealth, 61 Va. App. 417 (2013) (courts interpret statutes by the words the legislature chose 25)
- Jay v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 510 (2008) (common-law robbery definition 26)
- Brown v. Commonwealth, 24 Va. App. 292 (1997) (slight asportation suffices for robbery and abandonment does not negate intent 27)
- Hughes v. Commonwealth, 18 Va. App. 510 (1994) (intent is ordinarily inferred from facts and circumstances 28)
- Walker v. Commonwealth, 47 Va. App. 114 (2005) (force or intimidation can be inferred from physical control and transportation of victim 29)