Summary
The Supreme Court of Virginia considers whether the evidence was sufficient to establish malice for George Trevon Watson-Scott’s second-degree murder conviction. The court holds that intentionally firing multiple handgun shots down a city street constituted a wrongful course of conduct from which implied malice could be inferred, even without proof that the defendant targeted a particular person. The court affirms the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether intentionally firing multiple handgun shots down a city street, without proof that the defendant targeted a particular individual, is sufficient evidence of implied malice to support a second-degree murder conviction.
- Whether the doctrine of transferred intent was necessary to establish malice under the facts of the case.
Holdings
- Proof that the defendant targeted a particular individual or group is not required to establish implied malice. Implied malice may be established by intentionally embarking on a wrongful course of conduct likely to cause death or great bodily harm, including firing multiple handgun shots down a city street.
- The evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's finding of malice and Watson-Scott's second-degree murder conviction.
- The court did not need to decide whether Watson-Scott was shooting at his former companion or whether transferred intent applied, because the evidence independently established malice.
Key quotations
“Unlike express malice, implied malice does not require that a defendant have a deliberate intent to kill.” (at 5)
“There can be no doubt that intentionally firing multiple shots from a handgun down a city street is unlawful.” (at 6)
“It is patently obvious that firing multiple shots from a handgun in the middle of a populous city is the very definition of an action flowing from a “wicked and corrupt motive, done with an evil mind and purpose and wrongful intention, where the act has been attended with such circumstances as to carry in them the plain indication of a heart regardless of social duty and deliberately bent on mischief.”” (at 6)
Factual background
Watson-Scott fired four or five handgun shots up St. James Street in a populous city while approximately 20 to 25 feet from a witness. A bullet struck Carmella Winston in the head while she was seated in a vehicle, and she later died from the wound. The evidence did not establish that Watson-Scott was shooting at Winston, another identified person, or his former companion, but it established that he intentionally fired multiple shots down the city street before riding away.
Procedural history
After a jury or bench trial resulting in a second-degree murder conviction, Watson-Scott moved to strike the evidence, arguing that the Commonwealth had failed to prove malice. The trial court denied the motion and convicted him. The Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning that a rational factfinder could infer that Watson-Scott was attempting to shoot a specific person; the Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed on the alternative ground that firing multiple handgun shots down a city street itself supplied sufficient evidence of implied malice.