Credible evidence supports abduction and theft verdicts

Appellant’s conviction for abduction to obtain a pecuniary benefit was supported by the victim’s credible testimony.

Overview

Miller owned property that White and appellant Barber were renting from Miller for $300 per month. The utilities were not hooked up when they moved in and Miller was making efforts to get that done. Miller’s friend, Morrisette, let White and Barber shower and eat at her house.

Miller and Barber exchanged “contentious” text messages. Miller texted him that he and White had to leave. Barber then texted Morrisette, saying he was angry about the lack of electricity and threated to beat Miller.

Miller called Morrisette and asked her to bring a truck to the property to facilitate White and Barber’s departure. Morrisette did not mention Barber’s threats.

Miller arrived at the property. White and Miller exchanged “angry words.” Barber appeared and severely beat Miller. During the beating, White called Morrisette. “Based upon the commotion she heard in the background, Morrisette told White to call 911.” Morrisette began driving to Miller’s property.

Miller eventually was able to escape to Birdsong’s house on the other side of a four-lane highway. Birdsong called 911. Morrisette took Barber and White to another location. Police arrested them the next day.

A jury convicted Barber of abduction to obtain pecuniary benefit, robbery and two counts of credit card theft. “In this appeal, he challenges only his conviction for abduction to obtain pecuniary benefit.”

Credible testimony

“Under Code § 18.2-47(A), anyone who ‘by force, intimidation or deception, and without legal justification or excuse, seizes, takes, transports, detains or secretes another person with the intent to deprive such other person of his personal liberty’ is guilty of abduction. …

“Barber argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his abduction conviction, contending that Miller’s testimony was inherently incredible. …

“We find no basis to conclude that Miller’s testimony was inherently incredible. Miller testified in great detail about how Barber attacked her and threw her to the floor. He held her there while he repeatedly punched and choked her.

“Eventually, Barber placed Miller in a chair and, after robbing her of personal items, hit her with a hammer to force her to reveal her bank card PIN. Once Morrisette arrived at the house, the situation de-escalated, and Miller had the opportunity to distance herself from Barber.

“While he was outside looking through her truck, Miller escaped by running across the street to Birdsong’s home.

“Miller’s testimony did not stand in a vacuum, as appellant suggests. It was corroborated by Morrisette’s testimony about what she observed upon arriving at the scene, and Birdsong’s description of Miller’s appearance and statements when she appeared at Birdsong’s home.

“Moreover, Miller’s injuries after the incident were consistent with her account of the violence Barber inflicted upon her. Accordingly, Miller’s testimony was not demonstrated to be inherently incredible. …

“Barber argues that no detention occurred because he never carried through with his threat to tie up Miller with the extension cord, nor did he block any of the exits to the house during the attack or otherwise prevent her from leaving the property.

“Nonetheless, we find there was sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that appellant used force, and the threat of force, to detain Miller against her will both before, and after, the robbery offense was complete.”

Affirmed.

Barber v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0792-21-1, June 14, 2022. CAV (Lorish) From the Circuit Court of the City of Suffolk (Sandwich). Eric Korslund for appellant. Timothy Huffstutter, Jason S. Miyares for appellee. VLW 022-7-202, 9 pp. Unpublished opinion.