Wood v. Commonwealth
57 Va. App. 286
| Va. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Wood was convicted in a bench trial of two counts of felony child endangerment under Code § 18.2-371.1(B)(1) and appeals the sufficiency of the evidence and admission of certain statements.
- On September 23, 2008, a passerby observed Wood slumped in a parked car in a shopping plaza with two children in car seats, and the engine off.
- Police observed Wood with slurred speech, droopy eyes, odor of alcohol, and Wood claimed she had wine with lunch; blood sample showed BAC .19 at 4:31 p.m., Ambien detected in her blood.
- Dr. Edinboro testified that at Wood’s BAC (.22–.26 at the time of driving) and Ambien use, judgment, perception, and motor control would be severely impaired.
- The trial court found willful, knowing conduct endangering the children, determined substantial risk of harm, and noted Wood’s semi-conscious condition and misbehavior toward officers.
- On appeal, Rule 5A:18 preservation issues were raised regarding the admissibility and relevance of Wood’s statement about future driving.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for willful child neglect | Wood's intoxication alone argues lack of willfulness. | Intoxication does not prove willful endangerment; no proof of gross negligence. | Sufficient evidence of gross, culpable, willful conduct |
| Whether totality of circumstances supports gross negligence | High intoxication plus Ambien and semi-conscious state create recklessness. | Driving in a parking lot with limited movement cannot constitute gross negligence. | Yes; circumstances show reckless disregard for child safety |
| Admissibility of future-conduct statement to show willfulness | Statement about future driving is probative of willfulness. | Statement concerns future conduct and is not relevant to present willfulness. | Statement properly considered to show state of mind; not sole basis for conviction |
| Ambien ingestion and knowledge of effects | Ambien could have been ingested accidentally. | Trial court could reject accident theory given credibility findings and other evidence. | Trial court did not err in concluding intentional ingestion with knowledge of impairing effects |
| Preservation under Rule 5A:18 | Objection to future-conduct evidence preserved the issue. | Rule 5A:18 waives untimely or non-specific objections. | Objection timely and specific; issue properly preserved and considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Commonwealth, 39 Va.App. 96 (2002) (sufficiency standard for appellate review of evidence)
- McGee v. Commonwealth, 25 Va.App. 193 (1997) (further guidance on sufficiency and standard of review)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence)
- Cable v. Commonwealth, 243 Va. 236 (1992) (definition of gross negligence; reckless disregard for life)
- Barrett v. Commonwealth, 268Va. 170 (2004) (duty to protect children; dangerous conditions creating probable injury)