COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA UNPUBLISHED
Present: Judges Chaney, Callins and Senior Judge Petty Argued at Lexington, Virginia
RICKY RICARDO EDMUNDS MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY v. Record No. 1226-21-3 JUDGE VERNIDA R. CHANEY SEPTEMBER 20, 2022 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF DANVILLE James J. Reynolds, Judge
Erik L. Sapp, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Craig W. Stallard, Senior Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Following a bench trial in the Circuit Court of the City of Danville (“trial court”),
Ricky Ricardo Edmunds (“Edmunds”) was convicted of assault and battery against a law
enforcement officer in violation of Code § 18.2-57(C). On appeal, Edmunds argues that the
evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction because there is no evidence that he intended to
strike the officer nor that the officer had any apprehension of the impending strike. For the
following reasons, this Court affirms the trial court’s judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
On December 26, 2020, Edmunds displayed “very irate” behavior while he was being
booked into the Danville City Jail. When Sheriff’s Deputy Keatts attempted to remove Edmunds
from his holding cell, Edmunds remained irate and began to approach Deputy Keatts. In response,
Deputy Keatts pepper sprayed Edmunds and, with help from Sergeant Wyatt, secured him to a
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. restraint chair. A short time later, Edmunds removed his feet, arms, and shoulders from the
restraints. As officers tried to re-tighten the straps on the restraint chair, Edmunds moved his head,
striking Deputy Keatts. The incident was recorded on the jail’s surveillance cameras, and the video
was admitted into evidence at trial.
Upon a motion to strike the Commonwealth’s evidence, Edmunds acknowledged that his
head struck Deputy Keatts. However, Edmunds argued that this so-called “headbutt” was
unintended contact that occurred while Edmunds was thrashing his head with no intent to hit the
officer. Regarding an assault, Edmunds argued that under the circumstances, Deputy Keatts could
not have anticipated the “headbutt.” Based on Deputy Keatts’ testimony and the video evidence,
the trial court found that the sudden movement of Edmunds’ head “was an intentional act, a
volitional act on behalf of Mr. Edmunds toward the deputy.” Therefore, the trial court denied
Edmunds’ motion to strike.
At the close of all the evidence, Edmunds renewed his motion to strike during his closing
argument. Edmunds argued that he was blinded by the pepper spray and could not see where the
officers were nor what they were doing. Edmunds further argued that he was moving his head to
get the pepper spray off when his head unintentionally struck the deputy. Based on the video
evidence, the trial court found that Edmunds “violently pulled his head to the right and struck the
deputy [on] the side of the head or face area” while Deputy Keatts was attempting to tighten a
retraint over Edmunds’ right shoulder. Accordingly, the trial court found Edmunds guilty as
charged of assault and battery on a law enforcement officer. This appeal followed.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Standard of Review
On appellate review of a criminal conviction, this Court “consider[s] the evidence and all
reasonable inferences flowing from that evidence in the light most favorable to the
-2- Commonwealth, the prevailing party at trial.” Pooler v. Commonwealth, 71 Va. App. 214, 218
(2019) (alteration in original) (quoting Williams v. Commonwealth, 49 Va. App. 439, 442 (2007)
(en banc)). We “discard the evidence of the accused in conflict with that of the Commonwealth,
and regard as true all the credible evidence favorable to the Commonwealth and all fair
inferences to be drawn therefrom.” Commonwealth v. Cady, 300 Va. 325, 329 (2021) (emphasis
added) (quoting Commonwealth v. Perkins, 295 Va. 323, 323-24 (2018)).
“When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, ‘[t]he judgment of the trial court is
presumed correct and will not be disturbed unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to
support it.’” McGowan v. Commonwealth, 72 Va. App. 513, 521 (2020) (alteration in original)
(quoting Smith v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 450, 460 (2018)). “In such cases, ‘[t]he Court does
not ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Secret v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 204,
228 (2018)). “Rather, the relevant question is whether ‘any rational trier of fact could have
found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Vasquez v.
Commonwealth, 291 Va. 232, 248 (2016) (quoting Williams v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 190, 193
(2009)).
B. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Edmunds was convicted under Code § 18.2-57(C), which provides, in relevant part, that
“if any person commits an assault or an assault and battery against another knowing or having
reason to know that such other person is . . . a law-enforcement officer . . . engaged in the
performance of his public duties anywhere in the Commonwealth, such person is guilty of a
Class 6 felony[.]” “To sustain a conviction for assault, the Commonwealth must prove ‘an
attempt or offer, with force and violence, to do some bodily hurt to another.’” Parish v.
-3- Commonwealth, 56 Va. App. 324, 329 (2010) (quoting Adams v. Commonwealth, 33 Va. App.
463, 468 (2000)).
The attempt or offer to do bodily harm “occurs when an assailant engages in an overt act intended to inflict bodily harm [while he] has the present ability to inflict such harm or [the assailant] engages in an overt act intended to place the victim in fear or apprehension of bodily harm and creates such reasonable fear or apprehension in the victim.”
Id. at 329-30 (alterations in original) (quoting Clark v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 636, 641
(2010)). “To sustain a conviction for battery, the Commonwealth must prove a ‘wil[l]ful or
unlawful touching’ of another.” Id. at 330 (alteration in original) (quoting Wood v.
Commonwealth, 149 Va. 401, 404 (1927)). “[A] perpetrator need not inflict a physical injury to
commit a battery.” Gilbert v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 67, 71 (2005) (quoting Adams, 33
Va. App. at 469). However, “[o]ne cannot be convicted of assault and battery without an intention
to do bodily harm—either an actual intention or an intention imputed by law.” Parish, 56 Va. App.
at 330 (quoting Adams, 33 Va. App. at 468). “The unlawful intent may be imputed if the touching
is ‘done in a rude, insolent, or angry manner.’” Id. at 331 (quoting Adams, 33 Va. App. at 469).
Edmunds argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction because no
evidence established that he intended to strike Deputy Keatts or that Deputy Keatts had any
apprehension of the impending strike. However, as Edmunds acknowledges in his briefs, “[a]n
assault may occur even though the victim is not aware of any acts directed at him, provided the
actor intends to touch offensively . . . .” Adams, 33 Va. App. at 469. Thus, proof that Edmunds
intended and executed an offensive headbutt on Deputy Keatts is sufficient to sustain the
conviction even if the deputy had no apprehension of the impending strike.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA UNPUBLISHED
Present: Judges Chaney, Callins and Senior Judge Petty Argued at Lexington, Virginia
RICKY RICARDO EDMUNDS MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY v. Record No. 1226-21-3 JUDGE VERNIDA R. CHANEY SEPTEMBER 20, 2022 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF DANVILLE James J. Reynolds, Judge
Erik L. Sapp, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Craig W. Stallard, Senior Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Following a bench trial in the Circuit Court of the City of Danville (“trial court”),
Ricky Ricardo Edmunds (“Edmunds”) was convicted of assault and battery against a law
enforcement officer in violation of Code § 18.2-57(C). On appeal, Edmunds argues that the
evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction because there is no evidence that he intended to
strike the officer nor that the officer had any apprehension of the impending strike. For the
following reasons, this Court affirms the trial court’s judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
On December 26, 2020, Edmunds displayed “very irate” behavior while he was being
booked into the Danville City Jail. When Sheriff’s Deputy Keatts attempted to remove Edmunds
from his holding cell, Edmunds remained irate and began to approach Deputy Keatts. In response,
Deputy Keatts pepper sprayed Edmunds and, with help from Sergeant Wyatt, secured him to a
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. restraint chair. A short time later, Edmunds removed his feet, arms, and shoulders from the
restraints. As officers tried to re-tighten the straps on the restraint chair, Edmunds moved his head,
striking Deputy Keatts. The incident was recorded on the jail’s surveillance cameras, and the video
was admitted into evidence at trial.
Upon a motion to strike the Commonwealth’s evidence, Edmunds acknowledged that his
head struck Deputy Keatts. However, Edmunds argued that this so-called “headbutt” was
unintended contact that occurred while Edmunds was thrashing his head with no intent to hit the
officer. Regarding an assault, Edmunds argued that under the circumstances, Deputy Keatts could
not have anticipated the “headbutt.” Based on Deputy Keatts’ testimony and the video evidence,
the trial court found that the sudden movement of Edmunds’ head “was an intentional act, a
volitional act on behalf of Mr. Edmunds toward the deputy.” Therefore, the trial court denied
Edmunds’ motion to strike.
At the close of all the evidence, Edmunds renewed his motion to strike during his closing
argument. Edmunds argued that he was blinded by the pepper spray and could not see where the
officers were nor what they were doing. Edmunds further argued that he was moving his head to
get the pepper spray off when his head unintentionally struck the deputy. Based on the video
evidence, the trial court found that Edmunds “violently pulled his head to the right and struck the
deputy [on] the side of the head or face area” while Deputy Keatts was attempting to tighten a
retraint over Edmunds’ right shoulder. Accordingly, the trial court found Edmunds guilty as
charged of assault and battery on a law enforcement officer. This appeal followed.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Standard of Review
On appellate review of a criminal conviction, this Court “consider[s] the evidence and all
reasonable inferences flowing from that evidence in the light most favorable to the
-2- Commonwealth, the prevailing party at trial.” Pooler v. Commonwealth, 71 Va. App. 214, 218
(2019) (alteration in original) (quoting Williams v. Commonwealth, 49 Va. App. 439, 442 (2007)
(en banc)). We “discard the evidence of the accused in conflict with that of the Commonwealth,
and regard as true all the credible evidence favorable to the Commonwealth and all fair
inferences to be drawn therefrom.” Commonwealth v. Cady, 300 Va. 325, 329 (2021) (emphasis
added) (quoting Commonwealth v. Perkins, 295 Va. 323, 323-24 (2018)).
“When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, ‘[t]he judgment of the trial court is
presumed correct and will not be disturbed unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to
support it.’” McGowan v. Commonwealth, 72 Va. App. 513, 521 (2020) (alteration in original)
(quoting Smith v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 450, 460 (2018)). “In such cases, ‘[t]he Court does
not ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Secret v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 204,
228 (2018)). “Rather, the relevant question is whether ‘any rational trier of fact could have
found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Vasquez v.
Commonwealth, 291 Va. 232, 248 (2016) (quoting Williams v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 190, 193
(2009)).
B. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Edmunds was convicted under Code § 18.2-57(C), which provides, in relevant part, that
“if any person commits an assault or an assault and battery against another knowing or having
reason to know that such other person is . . . a law-enforcement officer . . . engaged in the
performance of his public duties anywhere in the Commonwealth, such person is guilty of a
Class 6 felony[.]” “To sustain a conviction for assault, the Commonwealth must prove ‘an
attempt or offer, with force and violence, to do some bodily hurt to another.’” Parish v.
-3- Commonwealth, 56 Va. App. 324, 329 (2010) (quoting Adams v. Commonwealth, 33 Va. App.
463, 468 (2000)).
The attempt or offer to do bodily harm “occurs when an assailant engages in an overt act intended to inflict bodily harm [while he] has the present ability to inflict such harm or [the assailant] engages in an overt act intended to place the victim in fear or apprehension of bodily harm and creates such reasonable fear or apprehension in the victim.”
Id. at 329-30 (alterations in original) (quoting Clark v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 636, 641
(2010)). “To sustain a conviction for battery, the Commonwealth must prove a ‘wil[l]ful or
unlawful touching’ of another.” Id. at 330 (alteration in original) (quoting Wood v.
Commonwealth, 149 Va. 401, 404 (1927)). “[A] perpetrator need not inflict a physical injury to
commit a battery.” Gilbert v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 67, 71 (2005) (quoting Adams, 33
Va. App. at 469). However, “[o]ne cannot be convicted of assault and battery without an intention
to do bodily harm—either an actual intention or an intention imputed by law.” Parish, 56 Va. App.
at 330 (quoting Adams, 33 Va. App. at 468). “The unlawful intent may be imputed if the touching
is ‘done in a rude, insolent, or angry manner.’” Id. at 331 (quoting Adams, 33 Va. App. at 469).
Edmunds argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction because no
evidence established that he intended to strike Deputy Keatts or that Deputy Keatts had any
apprehension of the impending strike. However, as Edmunds acknowledges in his briefs, “[a]n
assault may occur even though the victim is not aware of any acts directed at him, provided the
actor intends to touch offensively . . . .” Adams, 33 Va. App. at 469. Thus, proof that Edmunds
intended and executed an offensive headbutt on Deputy Keatts is sufficient to sustain the
conviction even if the deputy had no apprehension of the impending strike.
We hold that the evidence is sufficient for a rational fact-finder to find that Edmunds
intended to offensively headbutt Deputy Keatts. Rejecting Edmunds’ challenge to the sufficiency of
the evidence, the trial court found that Edmunds “violently pulled his head to the right and struck -4- the deputy [on] the side of the head or face area” while Deputy Keatts was attempting to tighten a
restraint over Edmunds’ right shoulder. These factual findings are supported by the video evidence
and the testimony of Deputy Keatts. Additionally, the trial court found that the sudden movement
of Edmunds’ head “was an intentional act, a volitional act on behalf of Mr. Edmunds toward the
deputy.” This Court accords great deference to the trial court’s factual determination that
Edmunds had the requisite intent for assault and battery. See Towler v. Commonwealth, 59
Va. App. 284, 297 (2011) (“Intent is a factual determination, and a trial court’s decision on the
question of intent is accorded great deference on appeal and will not be reversed unless clearly
erroneous.” (citing Robertson v. Commonwealth, 18 Va. App. 635, 639 (1994))). Because (i) the
evidence supports the trial court’s finding that Edmunds violently struck Deputy Keatts’ face or
head with his own head and (ii) the trial court’s finding that Edmunds intentionally struck
Deputy Keatts is not clearly erroneous, this Court will not disturb the trial court’s judgment of
conviction.
III. CONCLUSION
The evidence is sufficient to prove the essential elements of assault and battery against a
law enforcement officer. Accordingly, this Court affirms the trial court’s judgment.
Affirmed.
-5-