Robert Lee Jones v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 68 Va. App. 304

On Dec. 30, 2014 Jabari Lee was fatally shot while sitting in his SUV; investigators recovered bullets from the driver’s door window frame and center console.
Antoine Myler testified he saw Robert Lee Jones shoot Lee; Myler said Jones, Lee, and Myler were all inside Lee’s vehicle when the shooting occurred.
Jones was indicted and convicted of, among other counts, maliciously shooting at an occupied vehicle (Code § 18.2-154); he was also convicted of second-degree murder and related offenses and received a 26-year sentence.
At trial Jones moved to strike the § 18.2-154 charge arguing the statute does not apply when the shooter is inside the targeted vehicle (i.e., you must be outside to “shoot at” a vehicle); the trial court denied the motion relying on King v. Commonwealth.
On appeal Jones preserved only the sufficiency question as to the § 18.2-154 count: whether the statute’s phrase “shoots at” excludes a shooter located inside the vehicle.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Code § 18.2-154’s prohibition on “shoots at” an occupied motor vehicle covers a shooter who is inside that vehicle	Commonwealth: statute applies based on direction/destination of shot, not shooter’s location	Jones: plain meaning of “at” and statutory structure show it excludes shots fired from inside the vehicle	Court: "shoots at" focuses on direction of the shot; statute applies regardless of shooter’s location

King v. Commonwealth, 40 Va. App. 193, 578 S.E.2d 803 (2003) ("shoots at" focuses on destination of shot; shooter’s location irrelevant)
Ricks v. Commonwealth, 290 Va. 470, 778 S.E.2d 332 (2015) (same-term usage across statutes presumes same meaning)
Stephens v. Commonwealth, 263 Va. 58, 557 S.E.2d 227 (2002) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
Barson v. Commonwealth, 284 Va. 67, 726 S.E.2d 292 (2012) (legislature presumed aware of appellate interpretations; acquiescence effect on statutes)