Criminal – Unlawful wounding by mob conviction is affirmed

Where the defendant was part of a mob that viciously and violently attacked the victim out of anger, intending to permanently harm him, and the victim lost a tooth and suffered a concussion, the evidence supported the conviction for malicious or unlawful wounding by mob.

Background

Following a jury trial, Kevin Jefferson was convicted of malicious or unlawful wounding by mob.

Malice

Jefferson maintains that the Commonwealth failed to show that he acted with malice. Although the offense codified in Code § 18.2-41 sometimes is referred to as malicious wounding by mob, it “is a different offense from malicious wounding as codified in Code § 18.2-51.” Importantly, “[t]he disjunctive term ‘or,’ which separates the terms ‘maliciously’ and ‘unlawfully’” in Code § 18.2-41 indicates that it “only requires proof that the wounding was unlawful.”

The jury properly was instructed that it could convict Jefferson of this offense if it found that the mob acted unlawfully. Jefferson does not argue that the evidence was insufficient to support such a finding. Accordingly, this court need not consider whether the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of malice.

Intent

The Commonwealth also had to prove that the mob collectively intended to “maim, disable, disfigure or kill” J.T. Here, the jury was presented both with J.T.’s testimony and video evidence that demonstrated that Jefferson initiated a physical altercation with J.T. outside Donner’s motel room.

They scuffled for approximately one minute before separating. Kailub and Khory then arrived and confronted J.T.; as he walked away, they struck him, and he fell to the ground. At least six people—including Jefferson, Khory and Kailub—then surrounded J.T., and Jefferson, Khory and Kailub repeatedly punched, kicked and stomped him while on the ground. A jury hearing this testimony and watching this video could find that the members of the mob—including Jefferson—intended to permanently harm J.T.

The video evidence highlighted the vicious and gratuitous nature of the attacks.

Even after J.T. was on the ground, defenseless and outnumbered, Jefferson, Kailub and Khory continued to forcefully strike him in the head. A reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the members of the mob, including Jefferson, intended the natural and probable consequences of their collective actions. This inference is strengthened by the fact that, at several points during the attack, each of the defendants walked away from J.T. as he lay prone on the ground at the edge of the parking lot before returning to land additional blows.

Moreover, Jefferson acknowledged on the stand that, after their one-on-one struggle, he attacked J.T. out of anger, not fear. This anger further supports the inference that Jefferson and his confederates intended to permanently injure J.T. Having viewed the video evidence, the jury also was entitled to conclude that Jefferson’s testimony was an attempt to conceal his guilt by downplaying the severity of the attack and his intent in participating in it.

Finally, a jury could find from Rolley’s testimony that Jefferson and the driver of the vehicle were searching for J.T. after he escaped from the motel. Given Jefferson’s possession of a firearm in the vehicle and the driver’s statement about killing the person they were looking for, the jury could infer that Jefferson intended to further harm J.T. This inference, in turn, strengthens the conclusion that Jefferson, as a member of the mob that assaulted J.T., intended to inflict permanent harm on him.

Serious bodily injury

Jefferson does not directly contest that a lost tooth or a concussion could constitute serious bodily injuries. Rather, he asserts that J.T.’s testimony is insufficient to prove those injuries. This court disagrees. The jury was well-positioned to assess J.T.’s testimony that, after being repeatedly struck in the head by multiple people, his tooth loosened and later fell out. Having credited that testimony, the jury could conclude that J.T.’s lost tooth was “not trifling, grave, [and] giving rise to apprehension.”

Likewise, the jury was entitled to credit J.T.’s testimony that a doctor diagnosed him with post-concussion syndrome even without medical records confirming the diagnosis. This testimony is consistent with the responding officer’s testimony and body camera footage that J.T. was going in and out of consciousness when the officer encountered him after the attack.

Additionally, the jury could consider J.T.’s testimony about his injuries alongside the video evidence and Rolley’s testimony regarding the injuries that she observed as he crawled across the street to escape. The jury could conclude that the injuries J.T. described were consistent with the repeated and forceful assaults on him.

Affirmed.

Jefferson v. Commonwealth, Record No. 1705-24-1, May 5, 2026. CAV (unpublished opinion) (per curiam). From the Circuit Court of the City of Norfolk (Rigney). (Kristin Paulding; 7 Cities Law, on brief), for appellant. (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General; Jennifer L. Guiliano, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. VLW 026-7-183. 12 pp.

Full-Text Opinion
VLW 026-7-183