Commonwealth v. Sands
262 Va. 724, 553 S.E.2d 733, 2001 Va. LEXIS 116 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A claim of self-defense requires evidence of an overt act by the victim at the time of the killing that is indicative of an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm; a generalized fear resulting from a history of severe abuse, without a contemporaneous threatening act, is insufficient to justify the use of deadly force.
Facts:
- Victoria Shelton Sands suffered severe and escalating physical abuse from her husband, Thomas Lee Sands, which became a daily occurrence.
- Thomas repeatedly threatened to kill Victoria and her family if she ever attempted to leave him and held her hostage for three weeks in July 1998.
- On August 22, 1998, Thomas beat Victoria and threatened to kill her.
- The following day, Thomas assaulted Victoria on their back porch, pushed her down concrete steps, sat on her, and fired a gun twice into the ground near her.
- Throughout the rest of that day, Thomas drank beer, used cocaine, and continued to physically abuse Victoria with his fists and a gun, while threatening to kill her and her relatives.
- Believing Thomas was going to kill her that night, Victoria arranged for their son to be taken from the house.
- After enduring a final, severe beating, Victoria saw her injuries while with her sister-in-law, panicked, retrieved a gun from the kitchen, and walked into the bedroom.
- Victoria shot Thomas five times as he was lying in bed watching television; his only response was to ask, 'What are you doing?'
Procedural Posture:
- Victoria Shelton Sands was prosecuted in a Virginia circuit court (the trial court of first instance).
- A jury convicted Sands of first-degree murder and use of a firearm in the commission of murder after the court refused her requested jury instruction on self-defense.
- Sands (as appellant) appealed her convictions to the Court of Appeals of Virginia (the intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals of Virginia reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court erred in refusing the self-defense instruction.
- The Commonwealth of Virginia (as appellant) appealed the Court of Appeals' decision to the Supreme Court of Virginia (the state's highest court).
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 history of severe domestic abuse, coupled with continuous threats and assaults over a 24-hour period, constitute sufficient evidence of an 'overt act indicative of imminent danger' to warrant a self-defense jury instruction when the victim was passive and not posing an immediate physical threat at the moment he was killed?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kinser
No. A defendant is not entitled to a self-defense instruction where there is no evidence of an overt act by the victim creating a reasonable belief of imminent danger at the time of the killing. Self-defense is a plea of necessity, and 'imminent danger' requires an immediate, real threat. While Victoria Sands reasonably feared her husband, her fear was based on a long history of abuse and a brutal assault that had ended some time prior to the shooting. At the moment she shot him, Thomas Sands was lying in bed watching television and did not perform any overt act that could be construed as menacing present peril. The bare fear of future harm, however well-grounded, cannot substitute for the legal requirement of an overt act indicating imminent danger at the time the deadly force is used.
Dissenting - Justice Koontz
Yes. The continuous and brutal pattern of abuse inflicted upon Sands by her husband over the preceding 24 hours constituted the necessary 'overt act' to warrant a self-defense instruction. The majority defines 'imminent' too narrowly by requiring a simultaneous threat. A reasonable jury could have concluded that the victim's pattern of intermittently pausing his assault to watch television before inevitably resuming the abuse meant that Sands remained in imminent danger even while he was temporarily passive. Because there was more than a scintilla of evidence to support Sands' reasonable belief that she was in imminent danger, the jury should have been instructed on self-defense and allowed to determine the reasonableness of her actions.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a strict and traditional interpretation of the 'imminence' requirement for self-defense, particularly in the context of domestic violence. By ruling that a cycle of abuse does not satisfy the need for an overt, threatening act at the moment of the killing, the court significantly limits the availability of the self-defense plea for battered defendants who act during a lull in the violence. The holding creates a high bar for such defendants, effectively requiring them to wait for the next physical attack to begin before they can legally defend themselves. This case highlights the conflict between the traditional legal standard of imminence and the psychological reality of victims in abusive relationships who may perceive danger as constant and ongoing, even in moments of calm.
