Sheng Jie Jin v. Commonwealth of Virginia
67 Va. App. 294
| Va. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Sheng Jie Jin and his estranged wife Y.Y.Z. had a long-running marriage, business, and dispute; they separated and lived/worked near each other in New Kent County.
- On Jan. 20, 2015, Jin argued with Y.Y.Z. at her restaurant, threatened to kill her, and first accelerated his car toward her in a driveway, striking her with a side mirror after her brother pulled her back.
- Jin then drove away, returned, struck both Y.Y.Z. and her brother with his vehicle, collided with propane tanks, retrieved a hammer from his car, entered an adjoining restaurant, and repeatedly struck Y.Y.Z. in the head while bystanders restrained him.
- Jin was convicted after a bench trial of two counts of attempted first-degree murder (for the car attack and the hammer attack) and two counts of aggravated malicious wounding; he appealed.
- On appeal Jin argued (1) double jeopardy barred conviction on two attempted-murder counts because the attacks were a single continuing offense, and (2) the trial court improperly limited cross-examination of the brother about whether he paid rent (to show bias).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether two temporally related attacks constituted one continuing offense for double jeopardy | Commonwealth: separate acts supporting separate convictions | Jin: the two attacks were part of one continuous offense so convicting twice punished same offense | Held: Two distinct attempts—car attack and later hammer attack—were separate acts, so double jeopardy not violated. |
| Whether first attack (car) alone met elements of attempted murder | Commonwealth: car acceleration toward victim was a direct act toward killing | Jin: initial act and subsequent act were same continuous criminal design | Held: First act met attempt elements (intent + direct act); it was complete when Jin left. |
| Whether hammer attack was separate attempt | Commonwealth: hammer attack involved new method, location, and formation of intent | Jin: hammer attack flowed from same initial plan and therefore continued the offense | Held: Hammer attack was separate in time, place, means, and required new formation of purpose. |
| Whether trial court improperly limited cross-examination on bias (rent question) | Jin: brother living rent-free created motive to fabricate; question relevant | Commonwealth: question irrelevant | Held: Exclusion was within trial court discretion because question was at most marginally relevant; no Sixth Amendment violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Commonwealth, 793 S.E.2d 321 (Va. 2016) (Double Jeopardy Clause quoted and discussed)
- Sizemore v. Commonwealth, 243 S.E.2d 212 (Va. 1978) (elements of attempt: intent and direct act)
- Hodnett v. Commonwealth, 692 S.E.2d 647 (Va. Ct. App. 2010) (separate acts close in time can still be distinct offenses)
- Hall v. Commonwealth, 421 S.E.2d 455 (Va. Ct. App. 1992) (factors for determining same act: time, situs, victim, nature)
- Carter v. Commonwealth, 428 S.E.2d 34 (Va. Ct. App. 1993) (analysis on separate offenses and resuming assaultive behavior)
- Parsons v. Commonwealth, 529 S.E.2d 810 (Va. Ct. App. 2000) (attempt requires appreciable fragment and non-equivocal act)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1986) (limits on cross-examination regarding bias; marginal relevance standard)
- Norfolk & W. Ry. v. Sonney, 374 S.E.2d 71 (Va. 1988) (trial court discretion to limit cross-examination on bias)