Dueling citizen-filed Assault Warrants dismissed after neighborhood bad blood spills into Town parking lot

It was a “push” in Warren County General District Court on Wednesday, February 9, when the Commonwealth and judge tried to resolve dueling citizen-filed assault warrants. And while testimony from the two principals indicated the incident took place on November 12, 2021, in the Peyton Street parking lot next to the Virginia Beer Museum, it also became evident that James J. Roberts and Bruce W. Beavers were next-door neighbors with a somewhat contentious history.

That history, the nature of the charges, and the fact that Roberts and Beavers were defendants placed at the same defense table at the same time to face Commonwealth questioning led the court to direct Beavers’ attorney Jerry Talton to place himself in a seat between the two men as the case reached the court’s 1:30 p.m. docket. Asked by the court if he had an attorney, Roberts replied, “Not at this time.”’

“This IS the time, this is the trial,” Judge W. Dale Houff pointed out. So Roberts proceeded to trial self-represented.

Asked by Talton during cross-examination if he and his neighbor Beavers were friends, Roberts replied, “We once were – I don’t pay much attention to him now.” In fact, Beavers testified he approached Roberts’ car the day of the dueling alleged assaults to inquire whether his neighbor had any knowledge about an incident in which he stated one of his cars had been vandalized at his home property two days earlier in the late-night, early-morning hours.

Roberts, who was first called by Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Lindsay LeHew to tell his side of the story, testified that Beavers had approached his car “with a smirk” but that he could not initially understand what he called Beavers’ “unintelligible speech” over the volume of his car radio. It was at this point that the two men’s stories diverted on what led to the subsequent physical confrontation.

Roberts testified that when he opened his car door to exit so he could better hear, Beavers grabbed him by his lapels, drawing blood, which led to a struggle during which the two fell into Roberts’ car where he said Beavers “was still trying to fight me”. Unfortunately for Beavers, whom his attorney pointed out to the court was at a considerable height and weight disadvantage, a great deal of the struggle took place while he was pinned to the front driver’s side floor of Roberts’ car, at least partially under the steering wheel. Eventually, Roberts said two men approached the scene and helped end the incident.

Beavers subsequent testimony was that after he attempted to begin the conversation at the driver’s side window, Roberts rolled the window down and asked him what he wanted. Beavers said he didn’t have time to answer because Roberts slammed the door open and began punching at him. As he undertook to block those punches, Beavers said he was thrown into the car on the driver’s side floor by Roberts, who followed him in, positioned on the high ground of the car seat. Their struggle continued in the cramped space until Roberts took hold of his wrists as he tried to reposition at which point Beavers said Roberts began calling for assistance. That led to the appearance of the two men who intervened to help halt the struggle, Beavers testified.

During their respective testimonies, both defendants presented visual evidence, photos, and/or medical documents related to their respective injuries. For Roberts, it was photos of the apparent deep lacerations he said were a result of Beavers initiating contact by grabbling his lapels. Beavers presented photos and medical records, the latter disallowed without corroborating medical personnel present to verify the report, leading him to testify to the pictured injuries, which he described as lacerations, a cracked tooth crown, and a cracked rib.

When Talton asked Roberts his weight during cross-examination, the prosecution objected, leading Judge Houff to comment that the visual appearance of the two men was sufficient evidence of their respective sizes.

When prosecutor LeHew called Beavers to tell his side of the story in direct testimony, Talton moved that the Commonwealth’s evidence against his client – Roberts testimony – be struck from the record. If allowed that would have essentially been a dismissal of the charge against his client. However, Judge Houff denied the motion, noting that with the two defendants being jointly prosecuted by the Commonwealth without law enforcement involvement, it was not yet clear whether additional evidence, in either case, would be forthcoming.

Roberts did not cross-examine Beavers. With the evidentiary testimony of the involved parties complete, Talton submitted his client as sufficient evidence for dismissal of Robert’s assault claim. Neither the Commonwealth, Roberts, nor Beavers attorney made a closing argument.

In prefacing his ruling, Judge Houff observed that Roberts actions appeared to be the more aggressive and that from the testimony and photos presented as evidence Beavers appeared to have gotten the worst of the incident physically. However, he noted that Beavers had approached Roberts and his vehicle, initiating the interaction that quickly went from verbal to physical. The judge also noted Beavers description of an aggressively swung open car door could be considered a starting point of the physical confrontation.

With the conflicting stories having no witness-supporting testimony, the judge dismissed both assault charges. In the wake of that decision, Roberts left the defense table and courtroom somewhat hurriedly without comment. When this reporter left the courtroom seeking comment on the dismissals from the remaining defendant or his attorney, one of the Warren County Sherriff’s Office bailiffs working security check-ins offered Talton and his client a security escort from the building. It was an offer appreciatively declined with the other defendant not visibly lingering outside the building.

Beavers noted that Roberts filed the initial criminal complaint with the magistrate, leading to his filing of a counter-complaint after being served with the Roberts-initiated criminal warrant. “There was no reason for this,” Beavers said of involving the Commonwealth and Court in trying to determine fault in he said/he said situation with no corroborating witnesses to support either side’s version of how it began.