Tizon v. Commonwealth
60 Va. App. 1
| Va. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Tizon was convicted of second-degree murder and using a firearm to commit that murder by a jury in the Court of Appeals of Virginia.
- Evidence showed Tizon bought a .38 revolver five weeks before shooting her boyfriend, Ahmed Chouaib, at point-blank range in her condominium.
- The shooting left Chouaib dead with two gunshot wounds; no evidence of a struggle or of Chouaib being armed was found at the scene.
- After the shooting, a neighbor saw Tizon visibly upset and she admitted to having killed her boyfriend to the neighbor and to officers.
- At the scene and during transport, Tizon made incriminating statements, and she asked for a lawyer; later, she volunteered additional statements.
- The defense challenged sufficiency of the evidence, suppression/mistrial rulings, Miranda-related claims, and two jury instructions; the trial court denied relief and the jury convicted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to convict | Tizon claims the evidence fails to prove malice or intent to kill beyond a reasonable doubt. | The Commonwealth asserts malice may be inferred from the deliberate use of a deadly weapon and the circumstances. | Sufficient evidence supported second-degree murder and firearms charge. |
| Mistrial for right-to-counsel remarks | Prosecutor repeatedly referenced Tizon's invocation of counsel; a mistrial was required. | Curative instruction sufficed; no mistrial warranted. | No error; curative instruction and trial court denial of mistrial affirmed. |
| suppression of statements and Miranda | Statements obtained at scene and after arrest violated Miranda and were improperly suppressed. | Statements were voluntary or noncustodial; Miranda does not bar voluntary statements. | No Miranda violation; statements at scene were noncustodial or voluntary; suppression not required. |
| Jury instructions on inferring intent | Instructions improperly allowed inference of malice from weapon use and shifted burden. | Instructing on natural and probable consequences is proper and does not shift burden. | Instructions properly stated law; did not shift the burden. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 190, 677 S.E.2d 280 (2009) ( Jackson standard for sufficiency of evidence considered favorable to Commonwealth)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Pugh v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 663, 292 S.E.2d 339 (1982) (unlawful homicide presumed murder in second degree)
- Canipe v. Commonwealth, 25 Va.App. 629, 491 S.E.2d 747 (1997) (malice may be inferred from conduct likely to cause death)
- Clanton v. Commonwealth, 53 Va.App. 561, 673 S.E.2d 904 (2009) (reasonable-hypothesis review for innocence; evidentiary inferences)
- James v. Commonwealth, 53 Va.App. 671, 674 S.E.2d 571 (2009) (reasonable-hypothesis principle as a factual question)
- Murphy v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. (23 Gratt.) 960 (1873) (longstanding articulation of law on instructions)
- Howes v. Fields, 132 S. Ct. 1181 (2012) (custody for Miranda purposes; coercive environment considerations)
- Aldridge v. Commonwealth, 44 Va.App. 618, 606 S.E.2d 539 (2004) (Miranda custody analysis; non-dispositive subjective belief of suspect)