835 S.E.2d 902
Va.2019Background
- On Oct. 9, 2016, Watson-Scott was observed firing multiple shots from a handgun down St. James Street; a bullet struck and later killed Carmella Winston, who was in a parked car.
- Witnesses (Kenneth Moore and Shameek Massey) identified Watson-Scott as the shooter and described him firing four to five shots and then riding away on a bicycle; no direct evidence showed he was aiming at Winston.
- Watson-Scott was tried for second-degree murder; he moved to strike for insufficiency of evidence on the malice element, arguing there was no proof he intended to kill or targeted anyone.
- The trial court denied the motion, finding the deliberate use of a deadly weapon and multiple shots supported malice, and convicted him of second-degree murder.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, offering an alternative inference that he may have been shooting at a former companion who had been with him earlier; the Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed on the narrower ground that implied malice can be inferred from intentionally firing multiple shots down a city street.
- The Supreme Court declined to resolve whether malice required a specific victim or whether transferred intent applied, because it found implied malice from the deliberate, dangerous conduct itself.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence of malice for second-degree murder | Watson-Scott: evidence shows gross negligence/culpable conduct but not malice; no proof he targeted anyone or intended to kill Winston | Commonwealth: intentional firing of multiple shots down a populated street implies malice even absent proof of a specific target | Court: Affirmed—implied malice may be found from willful, dangerous course of conduct (deliberate use of a deadly weapon and multiple shots) |
| Whether implied malice requires targeting a particular person | Watson-Scott: malice must be shown by a cruel act directed at another; without a target transferred intent cannot apply | Commonwealth/alternative view: court may infer a target (former companion) but proving a target is not necessary if conduct itself is malicious | Court: Malice need not be directed at a particular individual; implied malice can arise from deliberate, wanton conduct likely to cause death; court did not decide transferred intent or definitively whether a target existed |
Key Cases Cited
- Kim v. Commonwealth, 293 Va. 304 (standard of review and de novo review on undisputed facts)
- Rodriguez v. Leesburg Bus. Park, LLC, 287 Va. 187 (standard for appellate review)
- Dawkins v. Commonwealth, 186 Va. 55 (definition of malice as intentional wrongful act)
- Martin v. Commonwealth, 184 Va. 1009 (malice not confined to ill will toward a particular person)
- Essex v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 273 (implied malice: willful course of conduct likely to cause death)
- Pugh v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 663 (distinguishing express and implied malice)
- Smith v. Commonwealth, 239 Va. 243 (malice may be implied from deliberate use of a deadly weapon)
- Warlitner v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 348 (use of deadly weapon as basis for implied malice)
- Pierce v. Commonwealth, 135 Va. 635 (untargeted harmful devices can give rise to implied malice when set with reckless disregard)
- Commonwealth v. White, 293 Va. 411 (judicial-restraint principle cited for deciding on narrowest grounds)