Anderson v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 04 December 1902 |
| Citation | 100 Va. 860,42 S.E. 865 |
| Parties | ANDERSON. v. COMMONWEALTH. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
CRIMINAL LAW — APPEAL — BILL OF EXCEPTIONS—EVIDENCE—ATTEMPT TO ESCAPE—VENUE.
1. Where the record on appeal in a criminal prosecution shows that defendant was allowed 30 days to tender his bill of exceptions, and that he was sentenced at the same term, but it nowhere appears that he took the 30 days, but each bill of exceptions, under the signature of the judge, recites that it is made a part of the record, and the clerk certifies the whole as the record at the trial, the record will be taken as importing absolute verity, and an objection that the bills of exceptions were not tendered at the term cannot be considered.
2. Evidence that 6 weeks after the homicide with which defendant was charged, and 12 days before the term at which defendant was to be tried, he attempted to escape, is admissible as a circumstance to be considered by the jury with the other facts tending to establish guilt.
¶ 2. See Criminal Law, vol. 14, Cent. Dig. §5 783, 1257.
3. Defendant was charged with having committed a murder in C. county. The evidence showed that it took place at Anderson's Store, about a Quarter of a mile from Lynch's Station, but there was no evidence that either was located in C. county. Held, that the court will not take judicial notice of the fact that a point at a given distance from Lynch's Station, an unincorporated village, was in the county of C.
4. The burden is on the commonwealth to prove that the offense was committed within the jurisdiction of the trial court.
Error to circuit court, Campbell county. Thomas Anderson was convicted of murder, Rnd brings error. Reversed.
Howell C. Peatherstotie and A. S. Hester, for plaintiff in error.
The Attorney General and W. A. Anderson, for the Commonwealth.
CARDWELL. J. This is a writ of error to a judgment of the circuit court of Campbell county affirming the judgment of the county court of that county sentencing plaintiff in error to the penitentiary for a term, of eight years for murder.
It is argued on behalf of the commonwealth that the bills of exceptions taken by plaintiff in error at his trial are not properly a part of the record here, because not tendered and signed during the term at which he was tried.
All that can be alleged in support of this contention is that the record shows that the defendant (plaintiff in error) was allowed 30 days in which to tender his bills of exceptions, and that he was sentenced at the same term, but that he took the 30 days or any part thereof nowhere appears. On the contrary, it appears from each bill of exceptions, under the signature and seal of the presiding judge, that it is "made a part of the record, " and the clerk certifies the whole, including the bills of exceptions, as the record of the proceedings at the trial.
Nothing affirmatively appearing in the record to show irregularity in the proceedings, it is to be taken as importing absolute verity, and presumptions of irregularity are not permitted. Gilligan's Case, 99 Va. 822, 37 S. E. 902; Reed's Case, 98 Va. 817, 36 S. E. 399; Dove's Case, 82 Va. 305. Of the assignments of error, two of them only require our consideration, as the others are not likely to arise upon another trial of the cause.
Exception is taken to the ruling of the trial court permitting the introduction of evidence showing that plaintiff in error, 6 weeks after the homicide with which he is charged, and 12 days before the term of the court at which he was tried began, attempted to break jail and escape.
This ruling is not erroneous. When a suspected person attempts to escape or evade a threatened prosecution...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. Com.
...is replete with evidence from which such an inference of guilt may be drawn from flight. As we stated in Anderson v. Commonwealth, 100 Va. 860, 863, 42 S.E. 865, 865 (1902): When a suspected person attempts to escape or evade a threatened prosecution, it may be argued that he does so from c......
-
United States v. Mullen
...v. Commonwealth, supra, 119 S.E. at page 64 the Court said: "The correct doctrine on the subject is stated in Anderson's Case, Anderson v. Com. 100 Va. 860, 863, 42 S.E. 865, cited with approval in Jenkins' Case, 132 Va. 692, 696, 111 S.E. 101, 103, 25 A.L.R. 882, as `When a suspected perso......
-
Blackwell v. Commonwealth
...trial ... [and] ‘may become one of a series of circumstances from which guilt may be inferred.’ " (quoting Anderson v. Commonwealth, 100 Va. 860, 863, 42 S.E. 865 (1902) )). These facts, coupled with the trial court's express finding that the testimony of both Archer and Taylor was credible......
-
Durham v. Cox
...to establish his guilt. See, e. g., Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896); Anderson v. Commonwealth, 100 Va. 860, 42 S.E. 865 (1902). It was submitted to the jury in the present case as a fact to be considered,3 not as determinative of guilt. Cf. Bird v. Un......