Thomas James Synan, II v. Commonwealth of Virginia
67 Va. App. 173
Va. Ct. App.2017Background
- On December 1, 2012, Thomas J. Synan, II’s van crossed into oncoming traffic, hit an embankment and rolled; his wife Ruth Synan was a passenger and two school buses narrowly avoided collision.
- Bystanders (bus driver Teresa Hiddleston, chaperone Dawn Napper, and others) observed the van’s abrupt, high-speed turn and assisted at the scene; several heard Ruth make statements immediately after the crash that Thomas grabbed the wheel and had tried to kill them.
- Witnesses reported Synan smelled of alcohol; parties stipulated Synan’s BAC was above .08.
- At trial the Commonwealth introduced Ruth’s out-of-court statements as excited utterances; at trial Ruth recanted parts of those statements, testifying she only briefly reached for the wheel.
- The trial court credited the contemporaneous statements and other witnesses over Ruth’s trial testimony, convicting Synan of malicious wounding (wife), DUI, and two counts of simple assault and battery (Hiddleston and Napper); some counts were dismissed or nolle prossed.
- On appeal Synan challenged (1) admission of wife’s statements as unreliable hearsay and (2) sufficiency of evidence for malicious wounding, DUI, and the assault convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of wife’s out-of-court statements (excited utterance) | Commonwealth: statements were spontaneous, made minutes after the crash, not elicited by questioning; admissible as excited utterances | Synan: statements were self-serving hearsay and unreliable | Trial court admitted; Court of Appeals affirmed (no abuse of discretion) |
| Sufficiency for DUI (did Synan "operate" vehicle while intoxicated) | Commonwealth: Synan momentarily seized control of wheel and was intoxicated; operation need not be continuous | Synan: no proof he was in control or driving at time of accident | Evidence sufficient; conviction affirmed (following Dugger precedent) |
| Sufficiency for malicious wounding (malice element) | Commonwealth: abrupt steering into oncoming traffic was a purposeful, dangerous act from which malice could be inferred | Synan: lack of proof he had control or intent to maim/disfigure/kill; wife’s trial recantation undermines culpability | Evidence sufficient; malice could be inferred from conduct and contemporaneous statements; conviction affirmed |
| Sufficiency for assault and battery (Hiddleston, Napper) | Commonwealth: van’s abrupt turn placed bus occupants in reasonable fear of bodily harm; supports assault convictions | Synan: no intent to threaten or harm bus occupants; control disputed | Evidence sufficient to show overt act creating reasonable fear; convictions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hicks v. Commonwealth, 60 Va. App. 237 (excited utterance admissibility standard)
- Dugger v. Commonwealth, 40 Va. App. 586 (brief or momentary control of steering wheel can constitute "operation" for DUI)
- Doe v. Thomas, 227 Va. 466 (relevance of lapse of time in excited utterance analysis)
- Robertson v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 814 (malice may be inferred from acts and conduct)