pull over on the side of the road.” Finally, Swanson described the damage to her car as “a crack in the cover of the light on the back” that was so minor “[she could] hardly tell [it was] there.” Deputy Christefano testified that he did not recall observing any debris in the roadway as a result of the impact between Swanson’s and appellant’s vehicles. Thus, the minimal nature of the damage to Swanson’s vehicle was insufficient to put appellant on notice that she had been injured. Although the evidence would support a finding that appellant’s front bumper and hood may have sustained some damage in the collision, no evidence establishes that appellant would have known about this damage before he fled the scene. Compare Cottee v. Commonwealth, 31 Va.App. 546, 558, 525 S.E.2d 25, 31 (2000) (<HOLDING>); Kil, 12 Va.App. at 812-13, 407 S.E.2d at 680
holding that circumstantial evidence that defendant drove the car and fled the scene after his brother committed robbery was insufficient to sustain defendants conviction absent other evidence of defendants intent to aid in the robbery holding communication to two people not actionable holding evidence sufficient to prove knowledge where defendant revved engine and drove into the two victims after which several bystanders were shouting that people were trapped under the car holding that a jury could reasonably infer defendant and his brother engaged in victims murder with deliberation where victims hands and feet were bound expert testimony was that victims injuries were inflicted when he was alive defendants gloves were discarded in victims trailer and defendant and his brother burned the trailer in an attempt to conceal the evidence holding that evidence showing the defendant after shooting the victim ran from the scene got into a car nearby and drove away was sufficient evidence of flight