Zequez Deaairo Jones v. Commonwealth of Virginia
65 Va. App. 274
| Va. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- At ~9:30 p.m., store manager Sung-Il Lee shone a flashlight at a group of young men after one left without paying; Lee recognized Jones as a regular customer.
- Lee, standing about 20 meters away, testified he was "absolutely sure" Jones had a handgun and then heard two or three loud gunshots, though he did not see the gun fired.
- Jones was charged with reckless handling of a firearm (Va. Code § 18.2-56.1(A)) and possession of a firearm as a convicted felon (Va. Code § 18.2-308.2).
- The trial court granted a motion to strike the felon-in-possession charge but denied the motion as to reckless handling and convicted Jones.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals considered whether the object Lee observed qualified as a "firearm" under § 18.2-56.1(A) and whether the trial court’s inconsistent treatment of the two firearm-related charges affected sufficiency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the object observed was a "firearm" under § 18.2-56.1(A) | Commonwealth: evidence that object appeared to be a gun and shots were heard supports that it was a firearm | Jones: must be proved to be a firearm as defined for § 18.2-308.2 (designed to expel a projectile by explosion); evidence insufficient | The term "firearm" in § 18.2-56.1(A) uses the same definition as § 18.2-308.2 (actual instrument designed to expel a projectile); Commonwealth failed to meet that standard; conviction reversed |
| Whether a different (broader) definition of "firearm" should apply under § 18.2-56.1(A) because of victim perception concerns | Commonwealth: suggests broader definition like for § 18.2-53.1 (appearance sufficient) could apply | Jones: use narrower, functional definition from felon-possession statute | Court: § 18.2-56.1(A) aims to prevent actual endangerment; therefore the narrower, functional definition governs |
| Effect of trial court acquitting on felon-in-possession charge but convicting on reckless-handling | Commonwealth: argues evidence could support reckless-handling even if court acquitted of felon possession | Jones: inconsistent verdict indicates factfinder rejected the interpretation needed to convict on reckless-handling | Court: bench trial cannot yield inconsistent guilty/ not-guilty findings; acquittal on felon-possession forecloses appellate reweighing to uphold reckless-handling conviction |
| Whether operability of the instrument is required for § 18.2-56.1(A) | Commonwealth: operability may not be necessary in every case | Jones: operability is relevant to whether an object is a firearm under the adopted definition | Court: Statute requires actual endangerment; whether operability matters depends on facts, but definition adopted is the same functional one used in § 18.2-308.2 |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. Commonwealth, 263 Va. 573 (explains differing definitions of "firearm" across statutes and defines firearm for felon-possession as instrument designed to expel a projectile)
- Holloman v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 196 (discusses victim perception and use of objects that appear to be firearms in felony prosecutions)
- Sarafin v. Commonwealth, 288 Va. 320 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Ervin v. Commonwealth, 57 Va. App. 495 (appellate court may not reweigh evidence or substitute judgment for factfinder)
- Commonwealth v. Greer, 63 Va. App. 561 (trial court may not render inconsistent verdicts in a bench trial)
- Va. Cellular LLC v. Va. Dep’t of Taxation, 276 Va. 486 (courts apply plain statutory language unless ambiguous)