Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 10/3/2005 8:33:45 AM EDT
www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=Common/MGArticle/PrintVersion&c=MGArticle&cid=1031785390961&image=timesdispatch80x60.gif&oasDN=timesdispatch.com

Henrico murder case dismissed
Judge rules defendant acted in self-defense during Aug. shooting
BY TOM CAMPBELL
TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER
Saturday, October 1, 2005


RELATED: Police Beat

A charge of murder against Donald Arman Terrien, who shot and killed Richard Jason Gooding on Aug. 14, was thrown out of court Thursday when the judge ruled Terrien acted in self-defense.

Gooding, 31, was the ex-boyfriend of Terrien's girlfriend, Bess McAteer, 24.

McAteer testified in Henrico County General District Court Thursday that she started to leave Terrien's house about 9 p.m. that Sunday evening. She had walked to her car parked in the street when Gooding drove up and confronted her, yelling.

She said Gooding complained about hearing Terrien, 34, in the background laughing "at me and my feelings" over the phone when Gooding had called her. Henrico police Investigator Joe Schihl played recorded phone messages Gooding had left for McAteer in which he angrily complained about Terrien laughing.

McAteer -- the only eyewitness to the shooting except Terrien -- said Terrien came out the front door with his pistol in hand, held at his side, and called out to her, asking what was going on. He stepped down to the bottom of the steps from the small porch.

She said she remembers Gooding saying: "A gun? You've got to be kidding me," and that he would "kick his ass," referring to Terrien.

She said she called to Terrien to go back inside and call 911. She said Gooding ran to the house's front steps and attacked Terrien, who had turned to go inside, from behind.

The exact sequence of events was not clear from testimony, but during the struggle with Gooding, Terrien fired two shots from his Sig Sauer 9 mm handgun. The first was into the air, holding the gun at arm's length, McAteer said.

The second shot was the one that killed Gooding. It was fired "dead center in his chest" and medical evidence showed it was not a contact shot with the muzzle held against the body, Deputy Commonwealth's Attorney Michael V. Gerrard argued in court.

Another witness, a friend who accompanied Gooding to Terrien's house, said he heard two shots with a few seconds of time between them. But the witness had stayed with Gooding's vehicle and was not in a position to see what happened.

Gerrard said Terrien acted hastily and used too much force for what happened to be legal self-defense. "You have to be in fear of death or serious bodily injury serious bodily injury," Gerrard said.

Defense attorney William T. Linka argued that the shooting was self defense. McAteer was fearful of Gooding and asked Terrien to call for police help, he said. When Terrien tried to do so, he was attacked from behind and had to physically defend himself at his own front door. He was concerned for McAteer's safety and his own.

Judge James S. Yoffy agreed with Linka.

"I think this is strictly a self-defense case," Yoffy said. He said Terrien "almost retreats" and then is attacked, fires a warning shot and is pummeled by his attacker. "Mr. Terrien had a right to defend himself. I'm going to dismiss it."


After court, Linka said Terrien "is very upset" since the shooting. "He feels awful that it happened."

Gerrard said the commonwealth's attorney's office could next take its evidence to the grand jury and seek an indictment against Terrien.

"We're going to take a second look and review the situation," Gerrard said.



Contact Tom Campbell at (804) 649-6416 or tcampbell@timesdispatch.com
This story can be found at: www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031785390961


The judge dismissed murder charges, then the DA will "take a second look" and take it to a grand jury?

How is this not double jeopard?
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 8:41:38 AM EDT
You lack understanding of how the criminal justice system works. That was a preliminary hearing to decide if there was enough evidence to prosecute. The DA disagreed and is seaking a grand jury to determine if there is enough evidence to prosecute. This was not a criminal trial.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 8:46:21 AM EDT
Its not real clear from the wording of the article, but it sounds like the judge dismissed the case at the arraignment. Double jeopardy wouldn't apply.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 8:55:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/3/2005 8:57:40 AM EDT by A_Free_Man]
You lack understanding of how the criminal justice system works.

Yes, I do lack understanding, it is absolutely insane.

Then why waste everyone's time with "hearings/arraignments" if they don't count, can be ignored? Daddy says no, so we'll go ask Mommy.

Link Posted: 10/3/2005 3:32:59 PM EDT
Slept through Civics classes didn't you?
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 3:47:34 PM EDT
I'd like to know how close he was to his front door.

That said, anyone who runs at a man with a gun usually doesn't have it all together upstairs.

Link Posted: 10/3/2005 4:00:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/3/2005 4:03:24 PM EDT by A_Free_Man]
I'd like to know how close he was to his front door.

"McAteer -- the only eyewitness to the shooting except Terrien -- said Terrien came out the front door with his pistol in hand, held at his side, and called out to her, asking what was going on. He stepped down to the bottom of the steps from the small porch."

"She said Gooding ran to the house's front steps and attacked Terrien, who had turned to go inside, from behind."

"When Terrien tried to do so, he was attacked from behind and had to physically defend himself at his own front door. He was concerned for McAteer's safety and his own."


If I had a gun in my hand, was tackled from behind IN MY OWN DOORWAY, was struggling with my assailant, I would have to assume that if I lost control of my firearm, the assailant wrestled it from me, that I would be in danger of being killed.


Slept through Civics classes didn't you?

No, I didn't. But our courts and what I learned in Civics don't seem to have anything in common. Why don't you explain about arraignments and grand juries. The Judge said he was dismissing the case. What does that not end it?
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 6:16:21 PM EDT
WHY does that not end it?

An arraignment is a formal proceeding (usually in felony cases) where the charges against you are told to you. It is not a trial. The Judge can dismiss the charges at this point if he feels the DA does not have enough evidence at that time to proceed to a formal trial with a reasonable expectation of having a potential of success. The DA can proceed and gather more evidence, and re-file the charge.

Grand Juries are a group of citizens that review the evidence from a DA and decide if there is enough evidence to decide that you may have committed a crime. Again this is not a trial and is just a determination that the evidence is such that you MAY have committed the crimes alledged. At that point you may or may not be arrested, warrants issued, or go to trial.

Double Jeopardy comes into effect when a formal trial has begun. Any preliminary activities don't count.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 9:17:50 PM EDT
OK, thank you.

This just sounds like a grandstanding DA with an axe to grind.

From everything I know about grand jury proceedings, it seems akin to "star chamber". No judge, just a DA spoonfeeding the grand jury what he wants them to hear. I don't get it.
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 8:44:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By A_Free_Man:
OK, thank you.

This just sounds like a grandstanding DA with an axe to grind.

From everything I know about grand jury proceedings, it seems akin to "star chamber". No judge, just a DA spoonfeeding the grand jury what he wants them to hear. I don't get it.



How come you know about a "Star Chamber" and can't understand this?

Grand Juries are a group of citizens that review the evidence from a DA and decide if there is enough evidence to decide that you may have committed a crime.

MAY have not DID
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 8:54:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/4/2005 8:55:15 PM EDT by eye_spy]
For a second jeopardy to apply, the accused needs to have a first jeopardy attach. Meaning, the accused needs to have been in "danger" of being convicted because of evidences presented and accepted during a trial.

Hope that helps. Its as simple as I could put it.
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 8:55:50 PM EDT
Jeopardy is not attached until a jury has been picked and sworn.

Until then, Jeopardy does not apply.
Top Top