FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHARLES CITY COUNTY. Thomas B. Hoover, Judge.
David B. Hargett for appellant.
Eugene Murphy, Senior Assistant Attorney General (Mark R. Herring, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Present: Judges Beales, Russell and Senior Judge Haley. OPINION BY JUDGE JAMES W. HALEY, JR.
[64 Va.App. 652] JAMES W. HALEY, JR.,
In a jury trial, Joquan Wayne Hawkins, appellant, was convicted of aggravated malicious wounding. On appeal, he argues " [t]he trial court erred in failing to grant the motion to strike the aggravated portion of the charge of aggravated malicious wounding because the only qualifying injury which was severe and permanent and significant physical impairment was the scar that was caused by the surgery rather than the shooting." Finding no error, we affirm the conviction.
This Court considers " the evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party below." Bolden v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 144, 148, 654 S.E.2d 584, 586 (2008).
Appellant shot the victim in the abdomen with a .45 caliber Glock pistol. The bullet caused a " through and through" wound, entering and exiting the victim's abdomen. As a result of the shooting, the victim had surgery in his abdominal area, and he was hospitalized for two weeks.
[64 Va.App. 653] At trial, the victim showed the two bullet holes to the jury. The record indicates he pointed to a wound located above his right hip and a wound located on the lower left quadrant of his abdomen. In addition, the victim exhibited the surgical scar to the jury. The trial court described the scar as follows.
The scar is a thick scar. This is not a hairline scar, this is a thick scar, half-inch wide. Midline surgical incision goes below his sternum, down to his navel. It curves around his navel and then goes a couple of inches, two, three inches down below his navel . . . .
The trial court also stated the scar was " very clear and obvious" eleven months after the injury, and the " points" where the staples or sutures entered the victim's skin were still visible at the time of trial.
The Commonwealth presented no medical evidence. On cross-examination, the victim agreed that after the shooting, he is able to do all the physical activities he could perform prior to the shooting. When asked by the trial court if he had any " disabilities from the shooting," appellant replied, " No, Sir, I mean I have . . ...