Jones v. Commonwealth – July 7, 2009
Posted by ron on July 7, 2009 · Leave a Comment
Jones, wearing body armor and carrying brass knuckles and a gun, took a friend with an extendable baton to Jermaine Outlaw’s apartment at night and kicked in the door. CAV concluded the trial court didn’t err in finding Jones was after more than just an apology, and convicting him of burglary and conspiracy to commit burglary.
Jones contends the evidence failed to prove the vest he wore was “body armor designed to diminish the effect of the impact of a bullet or projectile,” or that he wore the vest while committing a crime of violence, pursuant to Code § 18.2-287.2.
Jones also contends the evidence failed to prove conspiracy, arguing there was no evidence of an express agreement to take any specific action in the apartment. He contends the evidence failed to prove burglary, arguing it failed to establish a “breaking” or his intent to commit assault and battery once in the apartment.
From
The Court of Appeals of Virginia (unpublished decision)
Counsel
Charles E. Haden for appellant.
L. Diane Nelms [Office of the Commonwealth's Attorney] for appellee.
Assignments of Error
1. The Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s denial of Jones’ motion to strike the conspiracy charge where the Commonwealth failed to prove the existence of an agreement to commit burglary, assault and battery or any other offense.
2. The Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s denial of Jones’ motion to strike the breaking and entering charge where the Commonwealth failed to prove that the residence was actually broken into or that the entry was done with the intent to commit assault and battery.
3. The Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s denial of Jones’ motion to strike the body armor charge under Va. Code § 18.2-287.2, where the Commonwealth failed to prove that Jones was in fact wearing “body armor” withing the meaning of the statute or that he was committing “a crime of violence,” as defined in Va. Code § 18.2-288. The fact that a non-expert witness called the jacket a “bullet proof vest” does not prove that the jacket constituted “body armor” under Va. Code § 18.2-287.2.
Date Granted
7-1-2009