ALFRED BANKS, JR.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND W. Reilly Marchant,
Catherine French, Senior Appellate Coordinator (Dorian
Dalton, Senior Assistant Public Defender, on briefs), for
W. Stallard, Assistant Attorney General (Mark R. Herring,
Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Present: Judges Decker, AtLee and Malveaux Argued at
GRAFF DECKER JUDGE
Banks, Jr., appeals his conviction for stalking, in violation
of Code § 18.2-60.3. He argues that the trial court
erred by refusing his proposed jury instructions and in
admitting evidence of prior contacts. Further, the appellant
contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his
conviction because it did not prove that more than one
contact occurred during the timeframe alleged in the warrant
or that a reasonable person in the victim's position
would have experienced fear of death, criminal sexual
assault, or bodily injury. For the reasons that follow, we
affirm the conviction.
appellant's conviction is based on his contacts with
D.B., a medical doctor. In 1990, the appellant met D.B. in
Richmond, Virginia, at the medical clinic where she was an
intern and he was an aide. D.B. described their contact as
"cordial." They were not friends and did not
socialize outside of work. D.B. did not give the appellant
her personal contact information, such as her address or
D.B. graduated from medical school in 1990, she moved from
Richmond and started her medical residency in Newport News,
Virginia. The appellant sent D.B. unsolicited letters at her
place of employment in Newport News. In those letters, the
appellant wrote that he wanted to move to Newport News and
marry her because "he felt like [they] were supposed to
be together forever." He also persistently telephoned
her at work and at home. D.B. told the appellant that she was
not interested in having a relationship with him and wanted
him to stop calling her. However, the appellant did not stop
until D.B. moved to Washington, D.C., where she lived from
1992 to 1995. During that time, the appellant did not contact
moved back to Richmond in 1995. For the following year, she
again received unsolicited letters from the appellant. The
letters were left at the front desk of the clinic where she
worked. In the letters, the appellant stated that he cared
for D.B. and still wanted to "be [her] boyfriend."
In one letter, he said that "he was never going to stop
trying to talk" to her, which D.B. found
"disturbing." During that same time period, the
appellant also showed up in the clinic's parking lot at
least three times. He asked D.B. why she would not talk to
him. According to D.B., the appellant "just started
getting more and more sort of aggressive in his tone, "
which caused her to feel "scared" and
"intimidated." D.B. was worried that the appellant
"might try to hit [her] or do something violent."
She contacted the Chesterfield County and Virginia
Commonwealth University (VCU) police departments. D.B. spoke
with Lieutenant Carlton Edwards with the VCU police. Edwards
contacted the appellant and told him to leave D.B. alone.
"few years" after the contacts that occurred from
1995 to 1996, D.B. did not see or hear from the appellant. In
1998 or 1999, the appellant visited her workplace parking lot
again. He approached D.B. as she was getting into her car. He
grabbed her car door and yelled, "Why won't you talk
to me?" The appellant left only after two nurses who
were passing by asked D.B. if she was okay. D.B. contacted
Lieutenant Edwards again to address the problem. Edwards
spoke with the appellant, and the appellant agreed that he
would not have any further contact with D.B.
2014, however, the appellant contacted D.B. again despite his
representation to Edwards. At that time, he repeated his
behavior of approaching her in her workplace parking lot.
Although she did not recognize him at first, D.B.
"didn't feel good about" the man. She told him
to go inside the building, where there was a security guard,
and that she would talk to him inside. The man ignored her
and asked, "Can you be my doctor?" D.B. asked him
his name. When he identified himself as Alfred Banks, D.B.
recognized him. She said that she could not be his doctor and
told him to leave. Despite D.B.'s responses, the
appellant remained and repeatedly asked her to be his doctor.
D.B. went into the building as the security guard went
outside. The appellant left before the guard had the chance
to speak with him. According to the security guard, D.B. was
upset and said "he['s] back, he found me."
jury found the appellant guilty of misdemeanor stalking. In
accordance with the recommendation of the jury, the court
sentenced him to twelve months in jail, with six months
appellant argues that the trial court erred by denying his
proposed jury instructions on prior offense evidence. He also
contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of
prior contacts during the 1990s as proof that he
"engaged in conduct directed at [D.B.] on more than one
occasion under the first element" of the stalking
statute. Additionally, the appellant argues that the evidence
was insufficient to support his conviction because the
Commonwealth did not prove that he "engaged in conduct
directed" at the victim "on more than one occasion
during April of 2014" as was alleged in the warrant.
Finally, he contends that the evidence was insufficient to
support his conviction because the Commonwealth failed to
prove that his conduct placed D.B. in reasonable fear of
death, criminal sexual assault, or bodily injury.
Instructions and Scope of Evidence
appellant argues that the trial court erred by refusing his
proposed jury instructions limiting consideration of the
evidence of his previous contacts with D.B. and allowing the
jury to consider them as evidence of the "on more than
one occasion" element of stalking. The Commonwealth
responds that the appellant's proffered instructions
would improperly have prevented the jury from ...