KELSOE v. COMMONWEALTH

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

44538 Record No. 821094.

Attorney(S)

Barry W. Norwood for appellant. Vicki A. Leonhard, Assistant Attorney General (Gerald L. Baliles, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Judges

PER CURIAM.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Robert Lee Kelsoe was convicted in a bench trial of three separate charges of brandishing and pointing a firearm in violation of Code Sec. 18.2-282. The incident arose after Kelsoe had an argument with three men. After they walked away, Kelsoe withdrew a pistol from his coat and pointed it at the three men, who were standing together a few feet away facing him. The men were frightened and backed away. Kelsoe then replaced the pistol in his coat. The trial court sentenced Kelsoe to 60 days in jail on each charge. Kelsoe appealed, challenging whether his conduct constituted one or three violations of the statute.

Legal Issues Presented

Does pointing a firearm at multiple persons in a single transaction constitute one or multiple violations of Code Sec. 18.2-282?
Does imposing multiple punishments for such conduct violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy?

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The defendant contended that his act of pointing the firearm constituted only one offense.
He argued that imposing three separate punishments violated the constitutional protections against double jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the Virginia Constitution.

Appellee's Arguments

This information was not available in the provided opinion.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359 (1983)	Legislative intent governs whether multiple punishments may be imposed for a single transaction.	The court relied on this principle to determine that multiple punishments under Code Sec. 18.2-282 are authorized if the legislature intended separate punishments for separate victims.
Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368, 288 S.E.2d 491 (1982)	Clarification of legislative intent regarding multiple punishments and double jeopardy under Virginia law.	The court applied this precedent to affirm that multiple punishments for frightening multiple victims are consistent with legislative intent and not barred by double jeopardy.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court identified two essential elements of the offense under Code Sec. 18.2-282: (1) pointing or brandishing a firearm, and (2) doing so in a manner that reasonably induces fear in the mind of a victim. The facts established that Kelsoe pointed the pistol toward three men, each of whom was frightened and backed away. The court emphasized that the gravamen of the offense is the inducement of fear in another person. When multiple victims are separately frightened, each constitutes a distinct violation of the statute.

The court further explained that the controlling factor in assessing multiple punishments for a single transaction is legislative intent. The General Assembly intended to proscribe crimes against the person, and thus, frightening three individuals by pointing a firearm at each constitutes three separate offenses. Consequently, the imposition of multiple punishments is authorized and does not violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.

Holding and Implications

Affirmed.

The court upheld the trial court’s conviction and sentencing of Kelsoe for three separate violations of Code Sec. 18.2-282. The decision confirms that when a defendant frightens multiple persons by pointing a firearm at each, multiple punishments are authorized and do not violate double jeopardy protections. The ruling directly affects the parties by affirming Kelsoe’s three convictions and sentences. No new precedent beyond the application of established principles was set.

Show full summary ...

ROBERT LEE KELSOE v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

Pointing a weapon at, and inducing fear in, three people constitutes three violations of Code Sec. 18.2-282; multiple punishments stemming from same transaction authorized by legislature not barred by double jeopardy prohibition.

(1) Criminal Law — Statutory Construction — Pointing or Brandishing Firearm, Etc. (Code Sec. 18.2-282) — Section Prohibits Pointing a Firearm at Another in Such a Manner as Reasonably to Induce Fear.

(2) Criminal Procedure — Statutory Construction — Pointing or Brandishing Firearm, Etc. (Code Sec. 18.2-282) — Legislative Intent Determines Whether Multiple Punishments May Be Imposed for a Single Transaction.

(3) Criminal Procedure — Statutory Construction — Pointing or Brandishing Firearm, Etc. (Code Sec. 18.2-282) — The General Assembly Enacted Code Sec. 18.2-282 to Proscribe Crimes Against the Person.

(4) Criminal Procedure — Statutory Construction — Pointing or Brandishing Firearm, Etc. (Code Sec. 18.2-282) — Frightening Three People by Pointing Gun at Them Constitutes Three Violations of Statute.

(5) Criminal Procedure — Multiple Punishments — Constitutional Law — Double Jeopardy — Imposition of Multiple Punishments Not Barred by Double Jeopardy Prohibition.

Defendant pointed a pistol at three men. The men, standing together a few feet from defendant, facing him, were frightened and backed away from defendant. The Trial Court convicted defendant of three violations of Code Sec. 18.2-282 by pointing or brandishing a firearm, and sentenced him to three prison terms. Defendant appeals. The issue is whether his conduct constitutes one or three violations of the statute.

1. Violation of Code Sec. 18.2-282 requires (a) pointing or brandishing a firearm, and (b) doing so in such a manner as reasonably to induce fear in the mind of a victim.

2. Legislative intent determines whether multiple punishments may be imposed for a single transaction.

3. The General Assembly enacted Code Sec. 18.2-282 to proscribe crimes against the person.

4. The gravamen of Code Sec. 18.2-282 is inducement of fear in another. Frightening three people by pointing a weapon at them constitutes three separate violations of the statute.

5. Authorized multiple punishments are not barred by the constitutional prohibition of double jeopardy.

PER CURIAM.

In a bench trial, Robert Lee Kelsoe was convicted of three separate charges of brandishing and pointing a firearm in violation of Code Sec. 18.2-282, and sentenced to 60 days in jail on each. The sole issue on appeal is whether the defendant's conduct constituted one or three violations of the statute.

Kelsoe had an argument with three men. After they walked away from him, the defendant withdrew a pistol from his coat and pointed it at them. The men were standing together a few feet from Kelsoe, facing him. They were frightened and backed away from the defendant. Thereupon, Kelsoe replaced the pistol in his coat.

The defendant contends his act constituted but one offense, and the imposition of three punishments violates the constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy. U.S.C.onst. amend. V; Va. Const. art. I, Sec. 8. We do not agree.

Code Sec. 18.2-282, in pertinent part, provides that "[i]t shall be unlawful for any person to point, or brandish any firearm . . . whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another." There are two elements of the offense: (1) pointing or brandishing a firearm, and (2) doing so in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of a victim. The agreed facts establish that Kelsoe "pointed the pistol toward" the three men and that each was "afraid and backed away from the defendant."

[2-4] When considering multiple punishments for a single transaction, the controlling factor is legislative intent. Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359 (1983); Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368, 288 S.E.2d 491 (1982). In Code Sec. 18.2-282, the General Assembly clearly proscribed an offense against the person. The gravamen of the offense is the inducement of fear in another. We conclude, therefore, that when the defendant frightened the three men by pointing his weapon, he committed three separate crimes. Since the trial court was authorized to impose multiple punishments, the defendant's sentences were not barred by the double jeopardy clause. Cartwright, 223 Va. at 372, 288 S.E.2d at 493-94.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

Affirmed.