Charles Anthony Jones v Commonwealth

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINA

Present: Judges Coleman, Bunygardner and Lenons
Argued at Salem Virginia

CHARLES ANTHONY J ONES
MEMORANDUM OPI N ON’ BY
V. Record No. 0977- 98-3 J UDGE DONALD W LEMS
FEBRUARY 23, 1999

COMVONWEALTH OF VIRGIN A

FROM THE Cl RCU'T COURT OF PI TISYLVAN A COUNTY

WlliamN Alexander, II, Judge

Jesse W Meadows, III, for appellant.

Ruth M Mkeaney, Assistant Attorney Ceneral

(Mark L. Earley, Attorney Ceneral, on brief),

for appellee.

Charles Anthony Jones was convicted of threatening to burn
the house trailer of his estranged Wfe, Angela Wiite Jones, in
violation of Code § 18. 2-83. nm appeal he argues that the
evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. W disagree
and affirmthe conviction.

Qn July 23, 1997, Jones went to his wfe’s trailer to confer
wth her over a theft of their children’s bicycles. The
estranged couple engaged in a heated argunent wth both parties
yelling at one another. The wfe demanded that Jones leave the
premses, and he responded by threatening to "burn the house

down." Jones denied naking the threat; however, the trial court

resolved the issue of credibility against him

*Pursuant to Code § 17. 1-413, recodifying Code § 17-116. 010,
this opinion is not designated for publication.

- 2 -
When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on
appeal, the evidence is viewed "in the light most favorable to
the Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly
deducible therefrom." 	Welch v. Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 518,
523, 425 S.E.2d 101, 105 (1992). 	The credibility of witnesses
and the weight accorded their testimony are matters solely for
the trier of fact who has the opportunity to see and hear the
witnesses. 	Schneider v. Commonwealth, 230 Va. 379, 382, 337
S.E.2d 735, 736-37 (1985). 	The decision of the trial court will
not be disturbed unless plainly wrong or unless there is
insufficient evidence to support it. 	Code § 8.01-680.
Code § 18.2-83 provides that "[a]ny person . . . who makes
and communicates to another by any means any threat to bomb,
burn, destroy or in any manner damage any place of assembly,
building or other structure, . . . shall be guilty of a Class 5
felony." 	We have previously stated that in order to sustain a
conviction under this statute, the communication must be taken in
context, must have been maliciously made, and must reasonably
cause the receiver of the threat to believe that the speaker of
the threat will act according to his expressed intent. 	See
Perkins v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 7, 16, 402 S.E.2d 229, 234
(1991).
The state of estrangement of the parties was further
exacerbated by the wife’s complaints that Jones had forged one of
her checks and stolen her computer. 	In the context of criminal
complaints and angry confrontation, Jones communicated his intent

- 3 -

- 4 -
to burn the structure that served as his wife’s home. 	There is
no indication that the statements were made in jest.
Jones maintains that because his wife did not report the
matter to police immediately, his wife could not have reasonably
believed that he would commit the act. 	Even if the wife delayed
in reporting the threat, it is the province of the finder of fact
to determine if the delay undermined her credibility. 	See Love
v. Commonwealth, 18 Va. App. 84, 90, 441 S.E.2d 709, 713 (1994).
The trial court resolved this issue against Jones.
Considering the nature of the estrangement between the
parties, the existence of criminal allegations by the wife
against the husband, the hostility of the actual exchange itself,
and the unequivocal nature of the threat, we cannot say that the
trial court was wrong or that the evidence was insufficient to
support the conviction. 	The conviction is affirmed.
Affirmed.