Ulysses Blanding, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia
1810152
| Va. Ct. App. | Oct 4, 2016Background
- Victim suffered 35 stab wounds on June 28, 2014, including a five-inch chest wound that caused death; some wounds were defensive. Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder.
- Victim lived at appellant’s residence; she called her sister shortly before death saying appellant had cut her over a dispute about a TV remote.
- Physical evidence: blood at the apartment, a knife found in the sink with a DNA mixture to which the victim could not be excluded, smashed remote, and appellant’s blood-stained clothing and shoes.
- Appellant initially told police the victim stabbed herself and later admitted he placed the knife in the sink; he fled to his parents’ home and did not call police.
- At trial appellant gave inconsistent statements and testified he could not remember many details; on cross he said he “must have” stabbed the victim.
- Appellant sought to admit psychiatric testimony that he suffered dissociative amnesia to explain memory gaps; the trial court excluded the psychiatrist’s diagnosis as expert testimony about memory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of psychiatrist’s diagnosis of dissociative amnesia | Blanding: diagnosis explains memory lapse and supports credibility; testimony is admissible | Commonwealth: diagnosis would be expert testimony on memory and was properly excluded | Assuming error, any exclusion was harmless; conviction affirmed |
| Whether exclusion violated Sixth Amendment right to present witnesses | Blanding: exclusion denied his right to call witnesses (raised on appeal) | Commonwealth: issue not preserved at trial; review under non-constitutional harmless-error standard | Not preserved as constitutional claim; reviewed as non-constitutional harmless error and found harmless |
| Whether memory-loss evidence would have affected verdict | Blanding: memory explanation would undercut culpability or intent | Commonwealth: physical and testimonial evidence of guilt overwhelming; memory claim has minimal probative value | Court: other evidence so overwhelming that exclusion could not have affected verdict (harmless) |
| Standard for harmless error review | — | — | Court applies Virginia harmless-error framework: error harmless if evidence of guilt is overwhelming and error insignificant by comparison |
Key Cases Cited
- Kirby v. Commonwealth, 50 Va. App. 691 (Va. Ct. App.) (discussing Virginia harmless-error principles)
- McLean v. Commonwealth, 32 Va. App. 200 (Va. Ct. App.) (harmless error requires error be insignificant compared to overwhelming evidence)
- Luginbyhl v. Commonwealth, 48 Va. App. 58 (Va. Ct. App.) (decide on narrowest grounds)
- Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223 (U.S. 1973) (perfect trials not required; fair trial standard)
- Ricks v. Commonwealth, 39 Va. App. 330 (Va. Ct. App.) (flight as evidence of guilt)