Quest for $15 worth of gasoline could land defendant in prison

A West Point man determined to pump $15 worth of gasoline at local convenience store will now have to serve time behind bars after he attacked the store’s clerk.

Richard Lawrence Fredricks, 44, of 7928 Point Lookout Road, received guilty convictions for felony malicious wounding, misdemeanor destruction of property, and misdemeanor damage to a phone line during Monday’s New Kent Circuit Court proceedings.

Commonwealth’s attorney Linwood Gregory introduced surveillance tape from an incident last Oct. 10. Video evidence depicted Fredricks along with his brother in a confrontation with a clerk at the 7-Eleven convenience store in Eltham. The clerk, Sheila Marie Berkley, could be seen on tape approaching the defendant before a tussle ensued.

Berkley’s testimony established a firm background on why she approached.

“My boss informed me that [the defendant’s] brother couldn’t be on the property,” she said, saying the brother had been banned for placing trash in privately owned dumpsters a month earlier. “When I told him that, he became belligerent and began arguing with me.”

Following instructions given by her manager for dealing with anybody banned from the property, Berkley called 911. She followed the operator’s instructions to walk outside to get the license plate number. It was then that Fredricks tried to walk in the store and pay for the gas. After he was denied, she proceeded outside.

“He ran behind me, bear hugged me and hit me in the face,” Berkley continued. “He pushed me up into the other truck [at the pump.]”

After Berkley fell to the ground, Fredricks returned to the pump to continue gassing up. Berkley found her way to the pump and shut off the pump before a second stage of the attack ensued.

“I was being hit,” said the victim. “I was not sure with what, but I was being beaten.”

Berkley eventually got away and went into the store thanks to David Arrington, a bystander who was there with his step-father, Lester Jones. She also knew she had a serious injury.

“There was blood and I knew I was bleeding,” she said.

Berkley eventually made her way to a hospital where she received two stitches to close a wound on the back of her head.

Defense attorney Todd Duval, however, countered Berkley’s account of events.

“Did you ever see him hit you,” questioned Duval.

“No,” answered Berkley.

“By her own account, she never saw the defendant,” concluded Duval.

Jones recollection of events, however, backed up Berkley’s testimony.

“I heard [the brother] coming out the store arguing,” Jones testified. “When I saw how angry [Fredricks] was when he came out the store, I knew he was going to hit her.”

Jones said he witnessed Berkley being grabbed by her hair and thrown to the ground. That is when he and Arrington intervened.

“I saw the defendant standing over top of her with his foot by her head,” Arrington said. “It seemed like he had no remorse over what was going on.”

Duval’s cross-examination targeted conflicting statements made by Arrington in district court.

“You said at the preliminary hearing no stomping was involved. Are you changing your story?” questioned Duval.

“No,” responded Arrington. “His foot was by her head, though.”

Duval attempted to strike all charges, saying that malicious wounding involves dismemberment, harm, and intent. Gregory’s rebuttal led to Hoover favoring the commonwealth and continuing with the case.

“He was going to disable her so he could pump his gas,” said Gregory. “That was his intent to do her harm.”

Duval called the brother, Joseph Fredricks, to the stand.

“I saw the victim come out on the phone and my brother came out behind her and took the phone,” the brother said. “[Richard] begin pumping gas and he blocked her from stopping to pump gas.”

He said he never saw his brother striking Berkley and said he never intervened, but Gregory questioned the brother’s physical location during the altercation.

“Where were you standing?” asked the prosecutor.

“I was on the driver’s side door,” responded the brother.

“So you really couldn’t see what happened could you?” retorted Gregory.

The defendant took the stand and spoke about his nervousness on the day of the incident.

“I presumed she was calling the cops,” said Fredricks on his reasoning for grabbing Berkley’s phone and destroying it. “My only action was to disconnect the call.”

He denied striking the victim but admitted he used the flat of his hand to knock the victim aside. He claimed the victim fell from the force of the blow and she hit the back of her head on a hook from a cargo strap.

Gregory questioned the rationale of the defendant.

“Why did you try to take the phone?” asked the commonwealth’s attorney.

“I did not want the police involved with what transpired between her and Joe,” responded the defendant.

“But even if the police got involved, you weren’t in trouble at that point, were you?” Gregory questioned.

“No sir,” he answered.

Hoover began asking the defendant questions that were basic to facts of the case.

“Why would Mr. Jones, a bystander that you never met, make that kind of story up?” asked the judge.

Receiving no reasonable answer, Hoover continued to question the common sense used by Fredricks.

“Shouldn’t you respect that directive of the clerk who works at the 7-Eleven when she asked you to leave the property?” Hoover continued.

“I wanted to get the gas,” said the defendant sheepishly. “I had waited 15 minutes for it.”

Hoover continued to grill the defendant, asking if it was the right thing to do in that situation as well as if he recalled the surveillance tapes both parties reviewed earlier.

“All this over $15 in gas,” commented Hoover. “This is someone who acted irrationally and someone who acted without the concern of others.”

In closing arguments, both the prosecution and defense made firm stands on the accounts of the day.

“He intended to disable her so he can get his $15 in gas,” said Gregory. “That is the cause and definition of malicious intent.”

“He left and walked away after the initial altercation,” argued Duval. “The video shows that after he broke the phone.”

Hoover, however, agreed with Gregory, saying that testimony from the defendant and the brother were not credible.

“The tape is as strong as can be to show that the defendant was angry and in a state of rage,” said Hoover. “I find Mr. Jones to be a credible witness.”

Fredricks’ sentencing is scheduled for June 24.