Shelby McCurnin, Jr., s/k/a Shelby F. McCurnin, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 0309172

Shelby McCurnin was convicted of four counts of knowingly and intentionally videotaping nonconsenting adult women in a bathroom in violation of Va. Code § 18.2-386.1; convictions were entered after a bench trial.
McCurnin’s wife discovered videos of three different women (including her niece) showering or preparing to shower on appellant’s computer; appellant stipulated the images showed intimate parts and were nonconsensual.
Appellant claimed the videos came from a motion-activated game camera he charged in the guest bathroom and that any recordings were accidental; he deleted some files and later moved files to his computer.
The trial judge denied appellant’s pretrial motion to recuse, despite having heard a prior civil matter involving McCurnin in which the judge had expressed credibility views about appellant.
The trial court credited the wife and victims’ testimony that no camera was visible and rejected appellant’s account, finding circumstantial evidence (file storage, nonsequential segments, time span of recordings, appellant’s statements) supported intent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial judge should have recused himself for prior credibility statements	McCurnin argued judge’s prior credibility findings in a related civil hearing showed bias and required recusal	Judge had discretion; prior credibility remarks alone do not require recusal and judge said he could decide criminal matter on its own record	Denial of recusal affirmed — prior credibility findings do not automatically disqualify; appellant failed to prove bias or abuse of discretion
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove the element of intent under § 18.2-386.1	McCurnin contended Commonwealth failed to prove he intentionally filmed the victims (claims recordings were accidental)	Commonwealth relied on circumstantial evidence (multiple videos over months, nonsequential files, files on his work computer, statements to a coworker) to infer intent	Evidence sufficient — trier of fact reasonably inferred intent and rejected appellant’s accidental explanation

Wilson v. Commonwealth, 272 Va. 19 (discretionary standard and abuse-of-discretion review for recusal rulings)
Jackson v. Commonwealth, 267 Va. 226 (burden on moving party to prove judicial bias)
Justus v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 667 (prior statements or opinions by judge in earlier proceedings do not automatically disqualify judge)
Slayton v. Commonwealth, 185 Va. 371 (same proposition regarding prior judicial opinions)
Parks v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 492 (circumstantial evidence valid to prove intent)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
Fleming v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 349 (intent may be proven by circumstantial evidence)