*1 Richmond E. JOHNSON TIMOTHY OF VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH No. 0009-91-2 June Decided
Counsel Dworakowski; Bremner, Baber L. (Deanna J. Janus
Murray Janus, brief), for appellant. Theisen, B.
Virginia Assistant General Attorney Sue (Mary General, Terry, Attorney on brief), for appellee.
Opinion
WILLIS, J. E. Johnson was found Timothy failing of to at the scene of an accident in violation of Code 46.2-894. § He was sentenced ten years to imprisonment, suspended condi tion of good behavior. he On appeal, was insufficient to convict We disagree him. and affirm the judg ment of the trial court.
On we appeal, review the evidence in the favorable to the to it granting all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. The judgment of a trial court sitting without a jury is entitled to the same weight verdict jury and will not be set aside unless it from the evidence to appears
Josephs 87, 99, Va. App. (1990) banc) (en (citation omitted). incident, Two weeks to prior subject Johnson and his wife left, Mrs. separated. Johnson their taking two sons with young 4, 1990, her. On May without notice or arrangement to prior wife, his son, Brad, Johnson his six old picked up year mother, school. Learning Dickerson, of this Mrs. Johnson’s Mrs. Johnson, notified Mrs. who called the Mrs. Dickerson and police. home, Mrs. Johnson then to went him finding there with Brad. wife,
After arguing with his Johnson took Brad and into got his car. Mrs. Dickerson asked him to wait for the and Mrs. police, Johnson asked him to let Brad out of the car. told Mrs. Dickerson, car, who was at get the front out of the way or he would “run over.” He backed feet and then up several [her] accelerated forward. Mrs. Jonson out of but Mrs. jumped the way, Dickerson was struck the car and fell to the by ground. drove off without Dickerson offering assistance. Mrs. suffered abrasions on her arm and right right knee bumps her head. She was taken ambulance to Johnston-Willis Hospi- tal for treatment. impertinent part: 46.2-894 provides
Code § in which involved an accident vehicle The driver of . . . shall injured immediately stop is . . . person The name, struck .... address ... to the report to any person shall also render reasonable driver in such accident. injured to prove the Commonwealth failed first contends that that the argues purpose he Code 46.2-894. violated § involved in accidents to drivers require
the statute twofold: themselves; aid. necessary drivers to render identify require was, that, victim knew who already because the argues contends, the first himself. was not required identify fur- his case. He 46.2-894 inapplicable Code § him and argues antagonism ther because rendered her aid on his to have part attempt *3 would, have exacerbated probably, would have been rebuffed and the argues, the second statute the situation. did not apply. the narrow a construction on statute. places too a driver and the relationship
It addresses more than the is intended requirement victim of an accident. The identification order. investigation preserve public to facilitate accident is not de safety. The assistance advances requirement public may allay aid. Injury the victim’s desire to receive pendent upon to receive contentiousness, be injured antagonist may glad and an the Mrs. The record does not disclose aid from quarter. pro aid from Johnson. The statute rejected Dickerson would have in . . . that legislative every claims “the clear intended [driver] the scene of the accident stop volved in a motor vehicle accident to any render reasonable assistance exchange information and Commonwealth, 109, v. 8 Va. App .” Smith person injured 374, in this 115, 377 not raised (1989). has issue of or excuse. appeal that he the did not establish tht finally argues without that Dickerson was contends injured. knew that Mrs. Herchenbach be found guilty. such could not knowledge, 217, S.E.2d 328 185 Va. statute, order to be the “the driver [I]n done; be must aware that harm has been it must be present in then, his mind that there has been an with that injury; mind, in his deliberately go must without away making himself If know. an injury inflicted under such circum- stances as would the ordinarily superinduce belief in a rea- flow, flowed, sonable would injury collision, the accident or then it is the duty operator his vehicle.” Id. at (citations S.E.2d at 329 omitted).
View in the favorable evidence established that Johnson threatened run over and, Dickerson. then front, reversed his car she while was in forward, drove her and hitting knocking her down. These circum- stances the trial court’s support determination that Johnson knew or should known have that his car had struck Mrs. Dickerson and that she have may injured. been That was not judgment plainly wrong or without evidence to reasons,
For the foregoing judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed. J., Elder, concurred.
Benton, J., concurring. conviction; however, affirming concur judgment I do join the paragraph of the the con- opinion adresses struction of the statute. In that paragraph, majority expresses views that I believe are the law or the supported facts *4 this case.
Timothy E. Johnson seeks to have this be- Court conclude that conflict, cause the incident involved a a family greater disturbance would have occurred if he had rendered assistance. stopped for for potential greater justification conflict was not and assistance. W. rendering LaFave generally Scott, A. Handbook on Criminal Law 49-50 How- §§ ever, trial, the record establishes Johnson defended clearly basis that the not aware that against prosecution he “certainly He testified that struck Dickerson. his automobile his automo- if he had known automobile stopped would have” trial, and reconsider in a had hit Dickerson. After bile mo.tion the issue of verdict, new counsel first raised Johnson’s set aside for not stopping. justification volatility family disputes circum- exigent volatile difficult to conceive justified well be which a driver may stances in That justifica- and render assistance. to stop command statutory tion, however, circumstances must be based upon compelling not upon genera- at the time of the incident and shown to exist se than are more violent family per lized quarrels notion that, had he Johnson testified other confrontations. Because have stopped, hit he would known his automobile had that this does not his contention the evidence in the record own was a reason not to Johnson’s stop. family quarrel compelling now More- refutes the advanced testimony argument appeal. over, that Johnson a reasonable basis to no evidence proves he would have by stopping rendering fear that confrontation. the facts the record greater caused a for failure to a sufficient prove render assistance. the record the evidence in agree majority upon knew or did not err in that Johnson concluding
the trial judge Dickerson. Accord- known that his automobile struck should have I would also the conviction. affirm ingly,