The Virginia Court of Appeals has upheld the conviction of Empress Johnson for assault and battery, confirming that the trial court correctly excluded evidence regarding a prior incident involving the complaining witness. This ruling affects Johnson, who had argued that the evidence was crucial for her self-defense claim during her trial.

In October 2023, Empress Johnson and Kavis Baker began a romantic relationship. However, their relationship soured, leading to a confrontation on February 9, 2024. During this incident, Johnson and Baker had a heated argument while driving, which escalated when Johnson threw chicken wings at Baker after he exited her car. The situation intensified when Johnson approached Baker at his truck, threw her cellphone at him, and then physically assaulted him.

Bobby Ward, a neighbor, witnessed the altercation and testified that he saw Johnson aggressively approach Baker, who was trying to leave. Johnson was later convicted of assault and battery in March 2024 in a general district court. After appealing her conviction, she filed a police report claiming that Baker had attempted to break into her home in December 2023.

Before her trial in the circuit court, the Commonwealth moved to exclude any references to Baker's alleged attempted burglary, arguing that it was inadmissible character evidence. Johnson contended that this evidence was relevant to her fear of Baker and her self-defense claim. However, the court granted the Commonwealth's motion, ruling the evidence was irrelevant and potentially prejudicial.

During the trial, Johnson attempted to argue that she acted in self-defense. She claimed that Baker had previously tried to enter her home without permission, which she believed justified her actions during their confrontation. However, the court found that Johnson did not provide sufficient evidence to support her self-defense claim. The jury ultimately convicted her of assault and battery.

The court ruled, "Johnson never presented any evidence that she acted in self-defense," and noted that Johnson was the aggressor in the situation. The judges emphasized that Johnson did not demonstrate any overt acts by Baker that would have justified her fear for her safety. The court concluded that the trial court did not err in excluding the evidence of Baker's alleged attempted burglary.

This ruling has significant implications for similar cases in Virginia, as it reinforces the standards for admitting character evidence in self-defense claims. The court's decision clarifies that defendants must present credible evidence of an immediate threat to their safety to justify a self-defense claim.

Looking ahead, Johnson may seek further legal recourse by appealing the decision to a higher court. However, details regarding any potential appeal or related cases were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case could influence how courts handle similar claims of self-defense in the future.