Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Home / Opinion Digests / Criminal Law / Evidence supports wounding and stabbing convictions

Evidence supports wounding and stabbing convictions

Where appellant alleges there is insufficient evidence that he stabbed the victim, surveillance videos, and testimony from the victim and a police officer belie the claim.

Video evidence

“[T]here was sufficient evidence from which a rational factfinder could have determined that [appellant] Loyol stabbed Hub. The market surveillance video showed Loyol, Jervin, and Rodenzo enter Mi Rancho and then leave with Hub. Both Loyol and Hub identified Loyol as the person in the white t-shirt.

“The laundromat surveillance video shows the four men conversing next to a white Dodge pickup, which Loyol admitted to being in.

“Although flyers on the window obstruct part of the incident in the video, the video is nevertheless sufficient to show what occurred. Jervin forced Hub against the side of the pickup truck while Loyol and Rodenzo moved closer. Rodenzo pulls something out of his pocket and hands it to Loyol.

“When Loyol brings his right hand down, a long glinting object is seen in his hand. Rodenzo then walked around the truck, got in, and slowly started backing it out of the parking space. At the same time, Loyol grabbed Hub and appeared to raise the knife to Hub’s neck. Hub fell to the ground after a brief struggle.

“Loyol jumped over Hub and climbed into the truck as Rodenzo drove away. Jervin tried to get in the truck, but he fell out as the truck pulled away. Hub got up and walked back to the bar with his hand to his neck and blood soaking his shirt.

“Loyol argues that it was Jervin who had problems with Hub, not him. He also argues that the video was grainy and did not clearly show what happened. But the video shows that Hub was still standing after the initial scuffle with Jervin and did not appear injured. And immediately after Loyol raised the knife to Hub’s neck, Hub fell to the ground.

“Jervin’s hand and body position at that point in time indicate that he could not have stabbed Loyol.

“Additionally, while Loyol’s statements may not have been direct confessions, they can certainly be considered as circumstantial evidence of his guilt. Although he claimed he could not remember what happened, Loyol expressed remorse and stated that he should not have hurt Hub.”


Loyol v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0816-21-2, July 26, 2022. CAV (AtLee) From the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond (Cavedo) Jose E. Aponte for appellant. Timothy J. Huffstutter, Jason S. Miyares for appellee. VLW 022-7-285, 8 pp. Unpublished opinion.

VLW 022-7-285

Virginia Lawyers Weekly