Extended biting sufficient to show intent to assault

Appellant’s extended and forceful biting of a police officer’s arm was sufficient evidence that his bite was intentional.

Background

Deputy Cherry met Janie Ore near her home. Ore told Cherry that appellant and her young child were at the house. Ore said appellant had made suicidal statements. She asked Cherry to perform a welfare check.

Cherry arrived at Ore’s home. He knocked on the partially closed front door, entered the residence and told appellant he was there to check on his and the child’s safety. Appellant appeared to be intoxicated and was uncooperative.

Ore arrived. Cherry told her to get the child from a back bedroom. Appellant tried to follow her but Cherry restrained him and tried to handcuff him.

Appellant was on the floor and put his hands under his body. Cherry tried to get control of appellant’s hands. Appellant then bit Cherry’s right bicep. Cherry told him to stop.

Another officer arrived at the scene and hit the back of appellant’s head several times. Appellant did not release his hold on Cherry until he was pepper-sprayed.

Cherry was wearing a long-sleeved shirt. Appellant bit him so hard that he drew blood. Many months after the incident, Cherry still had a scar on his arm.

Appellant appeals his conviction of assaulting a police officer.

Didn’t mean to do it

“Appellant argues that, although he ‘was clearly resisting being detained, … there is no evidence that he intentionally bit’ Deputy Cherry. He maintains that his reaction to the deputy’s application of force was ‘involuntary’ and the biting was ‘accidental.’ …

“[A]ppellant was combative, and appeared intoxicated when Deputy Cherry entered the home to perform a welfare check. Appellant ignored the deputy’s commands and attempted to follow Ore down the hallway.

“When the deputy tried to handcuff him, appellant bit Deputy Cherry’s arm with enough force to break through the skin and draw blood, despite being ordered to stop. Even when Lieutenant Hudson hit him on the head, appellant did not release the deputy’s arm.

“It was reasonable for the fact finder to infer that by biting Deputy Cherry for an extended period of time and with significant force, appellant intended the consequence of his action.

“In doing so the jury rejected appellant’s defense of involuntariness. ‘[T]he fact finder may infer that a person intends the immediate, direct, and necessary consequences of his voluntary acts.’”

Affirmed.

Hill v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0671-21-3, March 29, 2022. CAV (per curiam) from the Circuit Court of Henry County (Williams). Michael A. Nicholas for appellant. Mark R. Herring, Tanner M. Russo for appellee. VLW 022-7-073, 5 pp. Unpublished opinion.