## Facts

- Officer Mark D. Bowen observed Demetrius D. Baldwin driving about 25 mph over the speed limit in a residential area and initiated a traffic stop after both vehicles turned onto Route 10.
- Baldwin pulled over in a paved right-turn lane with a clear path ahead; Bowen parked about a vehicle and a half length behind and approached the driver’s side.
- Bowen saw Baldwin on a cell phone and tapped on the window; Baldwin then turned the vehicle toward Bowen, crossed two lanes of traffic, and accelerated away.
- Bowen testified he pushed off the back of Baldwin’s car to avoid the rear wheels running over his feet as the car sped away.
- Officers pursued and arrested Baldwin approximately seven miles from the stop.
- At a bench trial, Baldwin testified he fled because he panicked due to an outstanding warrant connected to a DUI probation violation and denied intending to harm Bowen.
- Bowen conceded Baldwin did not reverse the car toward him and did not attempt to strike the police cruiser.
- The trial court convicted Baldwin of attempted murder (based on using the vehicle as a deadly weapon) and felony eluding; the Court of Appeals affirmed the attempted-murder conviction.
- The Supreme Court of Virginia granted appeal limited to whether evidence was sufficient to prove the specific intent to kill required for attempted murder.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence, viewed most favorably to the Commonwealth, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Baldwin specifically intended to kill Officer Bowen, as required for attempted murder.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the judgment affirming the attempted-murder conviction and dismissed that charge.
- The Court held the evidence was insufficient to prove Baldwin’s specific intent to kill; the facts were more consistent with an intent to flee.
- The felony eluding conviction was not before the Court and remained undisturbed.

## Legal Principles

- Attempted murder requires proof of a specific intent to kill; extremely dangerous or reckless conduct alone does not satisfy the intent element.
- Intent may be proven by circumstantial evidence, but the circumstances must exclude reasonable hypotheses inconsistent with the charged intent.
- On sufficiency review, evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, with all fair inferences drawn for the prevailing party, but a conviction cannot stand without proof of each element beyond a reasonable doubt.
- A vehicle may be treated as a deadly weapon in appropriate circumstances, but an inference of intent to kill requires evidence the vehicle was deliberately directed at the victim in a manner supporting lethal purpose.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Virginia set aside Baldwin’s attempted-murder conviction because the Commonwealth’s proof showed dangerous flight but did not exclude the reasonable hypothesis that Baldwin was trying to escape rather than acting with a specific intent to kill the officer.


Baldwin v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 276, 645 S.E.2d 433 (Va. 2007)