Baldwin v. Com.
2007 Va. LEXIS 76, 274 Va. 276, 645 S.E.2d 433 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A conviction for attempted murder requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with the specific intent to kill the victim. Evidence of reckless conduct that endangers a victim during an attempt to flee is insufficient, by itself, to establish this specific intent.
Facts:
- Police officer Mark D. Bowen observed Demetrius D. Baldwin speeding in a residential area and initiated a traffic stop.
- Baldwin stopped his car on the paved right-hand turn lane of a road.
- Bowen parked his cruiser behind Baldwin's car and approached on foot, stopping next to the driver's side door and rear passenger window.
- After Bowen tapped on the window, Baldwin put both hands on the steering wheel, turned the vehicle toward Bowen, and sped off across two lanes of traffic.
- Bowen, who was positioned beside and slightly behind the driver's door, had to push off the back of Baldwin's vehicle to prevent the rear wheels from running over his feet.
- Baldwin later testified that he panicked and fled because he had an outstanding arrest warrant.
Procedural Posture:
- Demetrius D. Baldwin was tried in the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County in a bench trial.
- The circuit court convicted Baldwin of attempted murder and eluding police.
- Baldwin, the appellant, appealed his attempted murder conviction to the Court of Appeals of Virginia.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, finding the evidence sufficient.
- The Supreme Court of Virginia granted Baldwin an appeal to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's action of turning his vehicle in the direction of a police officer and speeding away during a traffic stop, causing the officer who was standing beside the vehicle to push away to avoid being hit by the rear tires, constitute sufficient evidence to prove a specific intent to kill for an attempted murder conviction?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice G. Steven Agee
No. The evidence was insufficient to prove that Baldwin possessed the specific intent to kill Officer Bowen. To sustain a conviction for attempted murder, the Commonwealth must prove a specific intent to kill, which is a higher standard than the general malice that might suffice for a murder conviction. Here, Officer Bowen's own testimony established that he was standing beside and slightly behind the driver's side door when Baldwin accelerated. The primary danger was from the vehicle's rear wheels, which suggests Baldwin's action was aimed at fleeing into traffic rather than aiming his vehicle directly at Bowen to use it as a weapon. Unlike cases where defendants aimed their vehicles directly at officers in their path, the evidence here supports the reasonable hypothesis that Baldwin's intent was solely to escape, not to kill. Therefore, the Commonwealth failed to prove a necessary element of the crime.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high evidentiary standard required to prove the mens rea element of specific intent for inchoate crimes like attempted murder. It clarifies that a defendant's reckless or dangerous actions, even those posing a lethal risk, are not automatically sufficient to infer a specific intent to kill, particularly when an alternative hypothesis, such as an intent to flee, is reasonably supported by the evidence. The court's focus on the relative positioning of the vehicle and the victim provides a critical analytical framework for future cases, making it more difficult for prosecutors to secure attempted murder convictions in vehicle-as-weapon cases unless there is clear evidence that the defendant aimed the vehicle directly at the victim.
