Andelic v. Commonwealth
Decision Date | 15 May 2012 |
Docket Number | Record No. 0613-11-2 |
Court | Virginia Court of Appeals |
Parties | GORAN ANDELIC v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA |
Present: Chief Judge Felton, Judges Elder and Humphreys Argued at Richmond, Virginia
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY
Paul M. Peatross, Jr., Judge Designate
Charles L. Weber, Jr., for appellant.
Rosemary V. Bourne, Assistant Attorney General(Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
A jury convicted Goran Andelic ("appellant") of arson of an occupied dwelling in violation of Code§ 18.2-77.On appeal, appellant contends the trial court erred in overruling his motion to strike the Commonwealth's evidence as being insufficient to prove that the dwelling was occupied at the time of the fire.For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
"'Where the issue is whether the evidence is sufficient, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom.'"Baylor v. Commonwealth, 55 Va. App. 82, 84, 683 S.E.2d 843, 844(2009)(quotingSandoval v. Commonwealth,20 Va. App. 133, 135, 455 S.E.2d 730, 731(1995)).
In August 2009, appellant, a banquet server for Keswick Hall, began renting a room in a house located at 850 Black Cat Road ("the dwelling").1On September 14, 2009, after numerous unexplained absences at work by appellant, the director of human resources ("director") at Keswick Hall told appellant that he had two weeks to move out of the dwelling.2On September 17, 2009, appellant again failed to report to work.Later that day, between 5:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., the director and another manager went to the dwelling and informed appellant that his employment with Keswick Hall was terminated.The director told appellant that he needed to move out of the dwelling.However, at appellant's request, she agreed to permit appellant to remain in the dwelling for an additional two days.The director left the dwelling at approximately 6:15 p.m., and returned to Keswick Hall.At 9:06 p.m., appellant purchased three gallons of gasoline at a gas station located approximately ten minutes from the dwelling.A fire at the dwelling was reported to emergency services at approximately 9:20 p.m.After his arrest for arson of the dwelling, appellant told a fellow inmate at the jail that he had burned down a $2.5 million home with gasoline because "he had worked for the people and the people was trying to get rid of [him]."3
At the conclusion of the Commonwealth's evidence, appellant moved "to strike the occupied element of the charge . . . so the [c]ourt would find that this was an unoccupied dwelling and the unoccupied dwelling is punishable as a Class 4 felony."Appellant argued that the Commonwealth's evidence showed that, although he had been granted two more days to reside in the dwelling, he vacated the premises prior to the fire, taking his possessions with him,he did not intend to return, and he was, therefore, permanently absent from the dwelling.The trial court overruled appellant's motion to strike the Commonwealth's evidence stating that it was doing so "because I think it's a factual determination for the jury whether [appellant] was temporarily absent or permanently absent."
Appellant testified in his defense.He told the jury that when he was terminated, he asked the director to give him two more days to reside in the dwelling, but that she denied his request.He stated that on the same night his employment was terminated, he packed his belongings in his car and left around 7:00 p.m. or 8:15 p.m.4He also testified that when he left the dwelling, he went to the North Berkshire Apartments5 in Charlottesville, and thereafter left to purchase gas for his car.He further testified he did not start the fire that burned the dwelling.
Among other jury instructions, the trial court gave Instruction #13 that defined "occupied" as follows: "The term occupied does not require the physical presence of the occupant at the time of the arson, but means that the use of the dwelling is as a place of current habitation rather than a dwelling that is temporarily vacant."Appellant did not object to the granting of that instruction.6The jury found appellant guilty of arson of an occupied dwelling and fixed his punishment at imprisonment for seven years.Appellant"move[d] to set aside thejury verdict . . . as being contrary to the law" because "the evidence clearly established it was an unoccupied dwelling."The trial court denied appellant's motion to set aside the jury verdict.
On appeal, appellant argues the trial court erred in ruling that whether the dwelling was occupied in the context of Code§ 18.2-77 was a question of fact for the jury, and in overruling his motion to strike the Commonwealth's evidence as insufficient to prove the dwelling was occupied as a matter of law.We conclude from the record on appeal that the trial court did not err in instructing the jury that the issue of whether the dwelling was occupied was a question of fact for it to determine.
"When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, the Court will affirm the judgment unless the judgment is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it."Bolden v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 144, 148, 654 S.E.2d 584, 586(2008)."The credibility of the witnesses and the weight accorded the evidence are matters solely for the fact finder who has the opportunity to see and hear that evidence as it is presented."Sandoval, 20 Va. App. at 138, 455 S.E.2d at 732.Furthermore, "[i]n its role of judging witness credibility, the fact finder is entitled to disbelieve the self-serving testimony of the accused and to conclude that the accused is lying to conceal his guilt."Marable v. Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 505, 509-10, 500 S.E.2d 233, 235(1998).
An appellate court does not "ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."Williams v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 190, 193, 677 S.E.2d 280, 282(2009)(quotingJackson v. Virginia,443 U.S. 307, 318-19(1979))(emphasis in original)."Rather, the relevant question is whether 'any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.'"Id.(citation omitted and emphasis in original).Thus, when a jury has rendered its verdict, "it is not for this court to say that the evidence does or does not establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt because asan original proposition it might have reached a different conclusion."Cobb v. Commonwealth, 152 Va. 941, 953, 146 S.E. 270, 274(1929).Suffice it to say, an "appellate court is no substitute for a jury."Id.
Rushing v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 594, 606, 712 S.E.2d 41, 47(2011)(footnotes omitted).
Code§ 18.2-77 provides:
(Footnote added).
Id. at 447, 444 S.E.2d at 562.8In Marable, we addressed the meaning of "occupied" for purposes of Code§ 18.2-77, the arson statute at issue here, and noted that "[a]lthough Johnsoninvolved an interpretation of Code§ 18.2-92, a breaking and entering statute, we find no reason to distinguish between the two statutes."Marable, 27 Va. App. at 513, 500 S.E.2d at 237.We concluded that a dwelling is occupied "where the occupant or occupants are merely temporarily absent but continue to reside there."Id.
At common law, arson occurred even if the occupants of a dwelling were "temporarily absent at the time of (its) burning."State v. Gulley, 266 S.E.2d 8, 8(N.C. Ct. App.1980).Thus, the burning of a dwelling that is "merely temporarily unoccupied" is arson.Id.A structure is "temporarily unoccupied" if it is "dedicated and intended for residential use, and . . . is not presently occupied as a person's habitation, but . . . has [not] been permanently abandoned nor vacant for a prolonged period of time."State v. Green, 480 N.E.2d 1128, 1132(Ohio Ct. App.1984).
Davis v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 6, 8, 427 S.E.2d 441, 442(1993)(alterations in original).
The evidence presented to the jury proved that the dwelling was regularly inhabited by employees of Keswick Hall, including appellant.It further proved that appellant was an inhabitant of the dwelling and that at the time of the...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
