Sullivan v. Com., 701 S.E.2d 61 (Va. 2010). · Go Syfert
Search
Sullivan v. Com., 701 S.E.2d 61 (Va. 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
448 citation events (448 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Commonwealth v. Mahoney (va, 2026-06-11)
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010 2018 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth v. Mahoney
Va. · 2026 · confidence medium
“Rather, for an appellate court, ‘[t]he only “relevant question is . . . whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”’” Garrick, 303 Va. at 182 (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mitchell Ira Young v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
Our principal concern is “whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Barney, 302 Va. 84 , 97 (2023) (emphasis added) (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Harry Meredith Williams v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
The only relevant question for this Court on review “is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Christopher Andrew Craig v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
“The only ‘relevant question is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Cappe v. Commonwealth, 304 Va. 86 , 87 (2025) (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cola Winborne Beale, IV v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
“The only ‘relevant question is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational 6 Because Beale leaves his six other convictions unchallenged, we do not address them. -5- trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Id. (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Richard Dennis Lilly v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
The question on appeal is “whether any rational trier of fact could have found the [challenged] elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Cappe v. Commonwealth, 304 Va. 86 , 87 (2025) (per curiam) (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)); accord Commonwealth v. Barney, 302 Va. 84 , 97 (2023).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gregory Clark v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
The only relevant question for this Court on review “is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lamari Najek House v. Commonwealth of Virginia (2×) also: Cited "see"
Va. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
Pursuant to his guilty plea, he was sentenced for all ten crimes together, receiving a total sentence of 150 years with active time of forty-five years. -5- the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Barney, 302 Va. 84 , 97 (2023) (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)); see id. (recognizing that this same deferential standard applies to the factfinder’s interpretation of video evidence).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kevin Jefferson v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
The only relevant question for this Court on review “is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Barney, 302 Va. at 97 (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tyrone Allen Martin v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
For this Court on review, “[t]he only ‘relevant question is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Id. (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ronald Hickman v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
The only relevant question for this Court on review “is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gregory James Louissaint v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
The only relevant question for this Court on review “is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the 3 The video was not made part of the record on appeal, despite defense counsel’s request that it be “introduced into evidence for preservation.” On brief, Louissaint insists that the record is complete as-is, without the video. -3- essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fergeson v. Commonwealth (ORDER) (2×)
Va. · 2026 · confidence medium
ANALYSIS A. STANDARD OF REVIEW “When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, ‘the relevant question is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Jefferson v. Commonwealth, 298 Va. 1, 10 (2019) (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)) (emphasis added).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lionel Williams, Jr., s/k/a Lionell Williams, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
The only relevant question for this Court on review “is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Joshua Maurice Cousins v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
The only relevant question for this Court on review “is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Sullivan v. - 10 - Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ryan Saunders v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
Hence, on appeal, “[t]he only ‘relevant question is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Commonwealth v. Barney, 302 Va. 84 , 97 (2023) (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Justin Douglas Peery v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
The only relevant question for this Court on review “is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nathaniel Junius Boyd-Goode v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
The only relevant question for this Court on review “is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sandra D. Summers v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
The only relevant question for this Court on review “is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Anthony Elijah Perkins v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
The only relevant question for this Court on review “is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Curtis Ray Jones v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
Rather, the “relevant question is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (emphasis added) (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Duane Eugene Sholl v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
The only relevant question for this Court on review “is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gabrielle Nadine Romagna v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
The “only ‘relevant question’” on appeal “‘is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Id. (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Simon Dewitt Cobbs v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
The only relevant question for this Court on review “is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Igal Vondale Davis v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
The only relevant question for this Court on review “is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found -5- the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tristan Andrew Hensley v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
The only relevant question for this Court on review “is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Khaled Hassan Youssef v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
The only relevant question for this Court on review “is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Walter Lamonte Moore v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
The only relevant question for this Court on review “is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jeffery Newkirk, s/k/a Jeffrey Newkirk v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
The only relevant question for this Court on review “is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Christopher Ramone Jacobs v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
The only relevant question for this Court on review “is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Corey Everett v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
The only relevant question for this Court on review “is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Albert Laval Watson v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
The only relevant question for this Court on review “is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) James Levi McDonald v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
“We review the sufficiency of the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth.” Farhoumand v. Commonwealth, 288 Va. 338 , 351 (2014). “[I]f there is evidence to support the conviction, the reviewing court is not permitted to substitute its judgment, even if its view of the evidence might differ from the conclusions reached by the finder of fact at the trial.” Linnon v. Commonwealth, 287 Va. 92 , 98 (2014) (quoting Lawlor v. Commonwealth, 285 Va. 187 , 224 (2013)). “[T]he relevant question is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, wh…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) David Lydell Witcher v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
The only relevant question for this Court on review “is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Calvin Antonio Woodson, a/k/a Tony Woodson v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
The only relevant question for this Court on review “is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Corey Salmon v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
Instead, the question on appeal is “whether any rational trier of fact could have found the [challenged] elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Cappe v. Commonwealth, 304 Va. 86 , 87 (2025) (per curiam) (emphasis added) (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Travis Larone Kimble v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
The only relevant question for this Court on review “is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Barney, 302 Va. 84 , 97 (2023) (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dean Anton Vitasek v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
The question on appeal is “whether any rational trier of fact could have found the [challenged] elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Cappe v. Commonwealth, 304 Va. 86 , 87 (2025) (per curiam) (emphasis added) (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)); see Commonwealth v. Barney, 302 Va. 84 , 97 (2023).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Scott Edward Simandl v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
The only relevant question for this Court on review “is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Barney, 302 Va. 84 , 97 (2023) (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Asenso Edmund Attah v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
“The only ‘relevant question is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Commonwealth v. Barney, 302 Va. 84 , 97 (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Raymone Oneal Murray v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
The only relevant question for this Court on review “is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Barney, 302 Va. 84 , 97 (2023) (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Martique Laquan Holland v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
Thus, the only relevant question for this Court “is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Barney, 302 Va. 84 , 97 (2023) (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Andrew Brock, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
The only relevant question for this Court on review “is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Barney, 302 Va. at 97 (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cory Bigsby, s/k/a Cory Jamar Bigsby v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
The only relevant question for this Court on review “is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alvin Andrew Hanks v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
The only relevant question for this Court on review “is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Teron Danzell Young v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
The only relevant question for this Court on review “is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) John Albert Branche, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
“Thus, ‘it is not for this [C]ourt to say that the evidence does or does not establish [the defendant’s] guilt beyond a reasonable doubt because as an original proposition it might have reached a different conclusion.’” Commonwealth v. Barney, 302 Va. 84 , 97 (2023) (alterations in original) (quoting Cobb v. Commonwealth, 152 Va. 941, 953 (1929)). -5- The only relevant question for this Court on review “is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a rea…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jihad Arlik Ruffin v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
The only relevant question for this Court on review “is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Steven Randall Williams v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
The only relevant question for this Court on review “is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jerry Wayne Culbertson, Sr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
Instead, the “relevant question” is “whether any rational trier of fact,” after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, “could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 676 (2010)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Terry Lynn SULLIVAN
v.
COMMONWEALTH of Virginia.
100431.
Supreme Court of Virginia.
Nov 4, 2010.
701 S.E.2d 61
Charles S. Russell.
Cited by 257 opinions  |  Published

[*62] Dana R. Cormier, Staunton, for appellant.

Jennifer C. Williamson, Assistant Attorney General (Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Present: HASSELL, C.J., KOONTZ, KINSER, LEMONS, GOODWYN and MILLETTE, JJ., and RUSSELL, S.J.

OPINION BY Senior Justice CHARLES S. RUSSELL.

In this appeal from a conviction of misdemeanor animal cruelty under former Code § 3.1-796.122,[1] the sole question is whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.

Facts and Proceedings

In accordance with familiar principles of appellate review, the evidence will be stated in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party at trial.

While Brigette Berbes was driving on Interstate 81 in Augusta County about noon on April 10, 2008, she observed a horse lying in a pasture near the highway. The horse was covered with a purple blanket. Ms. Berbes, who was experienced in the care of horses, thought the blanket unusual because the temperature was in the upper 70's at the time. She ran some errands and then drove back by the same route. The horse was still lying in the same place.

Terry Sullivan was the president and executive director of the Fern Leigh Equine Foundation, Inc., a not-for-profit organization that cared for homeless horses on a farm owned by Ms. Sullivan. The foundation's purpose was to care for the horses until homes could be found for them. It was supported by donations and occasional proceeds from the sale of horses. At the time of trial approximately 35 horses were being cared for on the Sullivan property. The subject of this appeal, the horse seen by Ms. Berbes, was a mare approximately 20 years of age named "Dip."

About 7:00 that evening, Ms. Berbes returned to the scene and found that the horse had not moved. She called her mother, asking her to call Ms. Sullivan to tell her that Ms. Berbes intended to enter the Sullivan property to look at the horse. Ms. Berbes testified that she found the horse to be extremely thin and so weak that it could not lift its head off the ground. It was unable to reach a supply of hay, grain and a small pan of water that had been placed on the ground behind it.

Augusta County Animal Control Officer Gary Webb responded to a telephone report of the downed horse and met with Ms. Sullivan and Ms. Berbes in the field beside Dip. Webb testified that the horse had been "down for about 30 hours." Ms. Berbes asked Ms. Sullivan to give the horse to her so that she could care for it. Ms. Sullivan said that she would do so if Ms. Berbes would assume responsibility for any veterinary bills. Officer Webb then prepared a document entitled "Surrender Statement by Owner" that Ms. Sullivan signed. It provided that Ms. Sullivan did "[r]elinquish property rights to Brigette Berbes who will be responsible for vet bills and will vacate property when the vet leaves."

[*63] Ms. Berbes then called Dr. Scott R. Reiners, a veterinarian at the Mountain View Equine Hospital. He arrived at the scene and examined the horse. He testified that the horse was "nonresponsive to any stimuli, very dehydrated and emaciated." Because Dip was unable to raise her head to drink from a bucket, Dr. Reiners administered 22 liters of intravenous fluids in the field, placed her on a continuous intravenous drip, transported her to his hospital and gave her drugs and six more liters of fluids. Despite his efforts, Dip died later that night. Dr. Reiners expressed the opinion that the horse was in need of emergency care long before his arrival and that the condition in which he found her was not of sudden onset.

Two other veterinarians testified. Dr. David W. Brown, Laboratory Director and Veterinary Diagnostician at the Harrisonburg Regional Animal Health Laboratory, performed a postmortem examination of Dip. He found her to be emaciated and her ribs prominent. He opined that this condition had developed over a considerable period of time, "probably weeks." He found several disease processes affecting the intestines, liver, kidneys, lungs and heart, as well as infestation by intestinal parasites. These had caused the horse to become unable to absorb sufficient nutrition from the food it consumed, leading to its progressive emaciation and weakness. Dr. Brown opined that the immediate cause of death was cardiac fibrosis and colitis.

Dr. William S. Hunter, a practicing veterinarian, had done professional work for Ms. Sullivan for several years. He testified that she called him on April 10, 2008 and told him that she had a horse down; he thought she said it had been down for two days. That surprised him because most horse owners, he said, call a veterinarian immediately when a horse is found down. He testified that he had never known a horse to be "down a day or two and get up and live, [not e]ven with medical treatment."

Dr. Hunter testified that when Ms. Sullivan called him, she told him that she didn't know anything was wrong with Dip but when she removed her blanket she had "just wasted away." She asked him whether the horse should be euthanized and he told her that its prognosis was poor but he could not recommend euthanasia unless he had first examined the horse. Although he was willing to come to the farm to see the horse, she did not ask him to do so, but instead said, "Okay, we can handle this."[2]

Ms. Sullivan testified that after her conversation with Dr. Hunter, she called a friend, Gary Meeks, to euthanize Dip. Meeks was unable to come to the farm that evening, but promised to come the following morning. Dip was removed to the hospital before he could arrive.

Ms. Sullivan was charged by warrant with a violation of former Code § 3.1-796.122. She was tried and convicted in the general district court and appealed her conviction to the Circuit Court of Augusta County. At a bench trial, she was found guilty and sentenced to twelve months in jail, with six months suspended on conditions of good behavior and "no possession of horses" for 24 months. She appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction in a memorandum opinion with one judge dissenting. Sullivan v. Commonwealth, Record No. 1886-08-3, 2010 WL 152062 (Jan. 19, 2010). We awarded her an appeal.

Analysis

On appellate review of a criminal conviction for sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction, the relevant question is, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Appellate courts defer to the findings of fact made by a jury or a trial judge at a bench trial if there is evidence to support them and will not set a judgment aside unless it appears from the evidence that the judgment is plainly wrong. Code § 8.01-680. That deference applies not only to findings of fact, but also to any reasonable and justified[*64] inferences the fact-finder may have drawn from the facts proved. Johnson v. Commonwealth, 209 Va. 291, 295, 163 S.E.2d 570, 574 (1968).

Former Code § 3.1-796.122 provided, in pertinent part, that "[a]ny person who . . . (ii) deprives any animal of necessary food, drink, shelter or emergency veterinary treatment. . . shall be guilty of a Class I misdemeanor." Former Code § 3.1-796.66 provided: "`Emergency veterinary treatment' means veterinary treatment to stabilize a life-threatening condition, alleviate suffering, prevent further disease transmission, or prevent further disease progression."[3]

Applying that definition, we agree with the Court of Appeals' conclusion that there was ample evidence to support a finding that Ms. Sullivan deprived Dip of necessary emergency veterinary treatment. The circuit court could readily have inferred from the expert testimony that the horse was becoming progressively weaker and emaciated over a period of weeks before she went down. The court could properly discard as incredible Ms. Sullivan's account that she was unaware that there was anything wrong with the horse until she found it down, removed the blanket and discovered that it had "just wasted away." The court could properly conclude from the evidence that it would have been apparent, over a considerable period of time, that the horse was in need of veterinary treatment to alleviate suffering and to prevent the progression of disease. At the very least, the court could properly conclude that the horse was in such a condition during a period of 30 to 48 hours before its death that emergency veterinary care was immediately necessary to alleviate suffering, during which time no such treatment was provided.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated, we will affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Affirmed.

1 Former Code § 3.1-796.122 was repealed and replaced by Code § 3.2-6570, effective October 1, 2008, subsequent to final judgment in this case.
2 The only significant conflict in the evidence was Ms. Sullivan's account of this conversation. She testified that she remembered that Dr. Hunter had advised her "to put [the horse] down," that she had said, "[I]f you think you should come out . . . I want to give her every chance" and that Dr. Hunter replied, "No, no. It's pretty cut and dried."
3 The same definition appears in the replacement statute, Code § 3.2-6500.