His conduct presented the unequivocal appearance of an attempt, with force and violence, to do physical injury to O’Donnell. Although he did not possess a gun and had no actual ability to harm the officer with a gun, his conduct reasonably and unequivocally denoted an intention and the present ability to harm the officer. This evidence was competent and was not inherently incredible. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Affirmed. BENTON, J., dissenting. “[I]n the early law a criminal assault was an attempt to commit a battery and that only.” R. Perkins, Criminal Law at 159 (3d ed.1982). Consistent with that view, the common law of assault has long been defined in Virginia as follows: “An assault is an attempt or offer, with force and violence, to do some bodily hurt to anot (<HOLDING>). Because Virginia continues to be guided by
holding that under the bail reform act for a defendant to have been convicted of two or more offenses constituting crimes of violence offenses must have been committed on different occasions holding that plaintiffs did not have standing because they did not sue the party with the clear ability to act holding that the offender must have the apparent ability to execute the act constituting the assault holding that the trial court failed to exercise its discretion by stating that it did not have the ability to present the transcript to the jury holding that to constitute a prior conviction for purposes of the habitual felony offender act the defendant must have been adjudicated guilty before the present crime was committed