James Scott Witherow, II v. Commonwealth of Virginia

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that fear insufficient to prove justifiable self-defense may nonetheless demonstrate heat of passion
• holding that the use of a deadly weapon such as a firearm supports an inference of “an intent to maim, disfigure[,] or kill” (quoting Williams v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 393, 398 (1991))
• finding that an assault and battery instruction was warranted when defendant testified at trial that he intended to “scare” the victim by firing a gun
• noting assault and battery is lesser included in malicious wounding, which is lesser included in aggravated malicious wounding
• first quoting Barrett v. Commonwealth, 231 Va. 102, 106 (1986); and then quoting Graham v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 662, 671 (2000)
• “‘[A]n intent to maim, disfigure or kill may be’ inferred from the use of a deadly weapon.” (quoting Williams v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 393, 398 (1991))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).