Montague v. Commonwealth

522 S.E.2d 379, 31 Va. App. 187, 1999 Va. App. LEXIS 679
CourtCourt of Appeals of Virginia
DecidedDecember 21, 1999
Docket2003982
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 522 S.E.2d 379 (Montague v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Montague v. Commonwealth, 522 S.E.2d 379, 31 Va. App. 187, 1999 Va. App. LEXIS 679 (Va. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

FRANK, Judge.

In a jury trial, Homer D. Montague (appellant) was convicted of grand larceny, attempting to elude a police officer, and *189 felony murder. On appeal, appellant contends: 1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of felony murder because the underlying felony was complete before the homicide occurred; 2) the court erred in instructing the jury that they could return a conviction for felony murder solely upon finding a causal relationship between the underlying felony and the accidental killing; and 3) the court erred in instructing the jury that they could find that appellant was committing grand larceny at the time of the victim’s death. In finding the evidence insufficient to support appellant’s conviction for felony murder, we do not reach issues two and three. We, therefore, reverse appellant’s conviction of felony murder and remand for further proceedings if the Commonwealth be so advised.

I. BACKGROUND

On August 23, 1997, between eleven o’clock in the morning and noon, Leslie Louick parked her red Dodge Shadow on Grayland Avenue in Richmond. Around noon the next day, she discovered that her car was not where she parked it the day before. Ms. Louick reported to the police that the car had been stolen.

Later that evening, officers from the Richmond police department set up a traffic checkpoint on the north end of the Fourth Street Bridge. Officer Chester Roberts was positioned on the median as the southbound “chase car.” He was assigned to apprehend any vehicle that attempted to avoid the checkpoint.

Between ten and eleven o’clock, Officer Roberts observed two cars turn onto the bridge at the south end of the bridge. One was a large, dark sedan, and the other was a red car. The red car was later identified as the car belonging to Ms. Louick. The cars traveled for approximately one hundred feet on the bridge and then made U-turns across the solid, double, center lines. Officer Roberts activated his emergency lights and siren and pursued the vehicles. After several blocks, the sedan turned left at an intersection and the red car continued *190 travelling straight. Officer Roberts followed the red car into the Gilpin Court community, a residential area. The red car attempted to make a left turn, went into a skid by an apartment building, and then jumped the curb and crashed into a large rock. The red car came to a stop, and the driver exited the vehicle and fled on foot.

Officer Roberts started to pursue the driver when he heard a young girl screaming about her friend. At that time, Officer Roberts saw the victim, a ten-year-old boy. The girl and the victim were riding their bikes when the red car jumped the curb and struck the victim. The girl testified that she saw appellant driving the red car earlier that day.

Officer Duncan Pence arrived at the scene of the accident. Officer Roberts remained with the victim, and Officer Pence pursued and apprehended appellant. The victim suffered a brain injury and died when he was removed from a life support system at the Medical College of Virginia. The jury convicted appellant of grand larceny, attempting to elude a police officer, and felony murder.

II. ANALYSIS

Under familiar principles, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the party prevailing below, granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. See Clifton v. Commonwealth, 22 Va.App. 178, 180, 468 S.E.2d 155, 156 (1996). We will not reverse the judgment of the trial court unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. See Code § 8.01-680.

Code § 18.2-33 defines felony murder as “[t]he killing of one accidentally, contrary to the intention of the parties, while in the prosecution of some felonious act other than those specified in §§ 18.2-31 and 18.2-32.”

The Supreme Court of Virginia has adopted the res gestae theory in applying the felony murder statute. See Haskell v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 1033, 243 S.E.2d 477 (1978). Under the res gestae theory, the felony murder *191 doctrine applies when the “initial felony and the homicide [are] parts of one continuous transaction, and [are] closely related in point of time, place, and causal connection.” Id. at 1041, 243 S.E.2d at 482. We have held that the “[d]eath must be directly related in time, place, and causal connection to the commission of the felony; the felony or acts in furtherance thereof must contribute to cause the death to constitute a ‘killing’ within the felony-murder statute.” King v. Commonwealth, 6 Va.App. 351, 357, 368 S.E.2d 704, 707 (1988).

In Davis v. Commonwealth, 12 Va.App. 408, 404 S.E.2d 377 (1991), we affirmed a conviction for felony murder where a motorist, who had been declared an habitual offender, caused an accidental death. The accident occurred when the driver was attempting to elude police in order to “avoid being caught committing the felonious act of driving after being declared an habitual offender.” Id. at 413, 404 S.E.2d at 380. In applying the res gestae theory, we held that because the habitual offender was committing the offense and attempting to escape detection when the accident occurred, the accident was “ ‘a consequence or action which was directly intended to further the felony.’ ” Id. The felony was the act of driving after having been declared an habitual offender, a continuing offense, which the driver was committing at the time of the accidental death.

In King, we applied the res gestae theory and found no causal connection between an airplane crash, which resulted in an accidental death, and the defendant’s possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute. See King, 6 Va.App. at 358, 368 S.E.2d at 707-08. The defendant and his copilot were transporting over five hundred pounds of marijuana by airplane when they encountered heavy cloud cover and fog. See id. at 353-54, 368 S.E.2d at 705. They flew the plane at a lower altitude in order to follow U.S. Route 52. See id. at 354, 368 S.E.2d at 705. The plane crashed into a mountain, and the copilot was killed. See id. In applying the res gestae analysis to determine whether the defendant was accountable for the felony murder of the copilot, we wrote:

*192 In the present case, King and Bailey were in the airplane to further the felony of possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute. They were flying over the mountains while committing the felony. The time and the place of the death were closely connected with the felony.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State of Tennessee v. Jamauri Ransom
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 2021
State of Tennessee v. Raymond Lee Swett, Jr.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 2013
Yates v. State
55 A.3d 25 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2012)
Yates v. State
33 A.3d 1071 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 2011)
Commonwealth v. Montague
536 S.E.2d 910 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 2000)
Smith v. Commonwealth
531 S.E.2d 608 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2000)
Metheny v. State
755 A.2d 1088 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2000)
State v. Pierce
23 S.W.3d 289 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
522 S.E.2d 379, 31 Va. App. 187, 1999 Va. App. LEXIS 679, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montague-v-commonwealth-vactapp-1999.