Blount v. Com.

• Citation: 213 Va. 807, 195 S.E.2d 693
• Case Date: April 23, 1973
• Court: Supreme Court of Virginia

Page 693

195 S.E.2d 693 213 Va. 807 William BLOUNT
v.
COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. Supreme Court of Virginia. April 23, 1973.

Page 694

Paul M. Lipkin, Robert H. Anderson, Jr., Norfolk (Goldblatt, Lipkin, Cohen, Anderson, Levy & Jenkins, Norfolk, on brief), for plaintiff in error.

Gilbert W. Haith, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Andrew P. Miller, Atty. Gen., on brief), for defendant in error.

Before SNEAD, C.J., and I'ANSON, CARRICO, HARRISON, COCHRAN, HARMAN and POFF, JJ.

COCHRAN, Justice.

[213 Va. 808] William Blount was convicted in the trial court, sitting with a jury, of unlawfully and feloniously distributing heroin. He is here on a writ of error to the judgment order imposing a sentence, in accordance with the jury verdict, of thirty-five years in the State penitentiary and payment of a fine of $25,000.

Blount's assignments of error that merit our consideration challenge the trial court's actions in (1) ruling on two instructions, (2) refusing to permit certain cross-examination by Blount's counsel of the principal witness for the Commonwealth, and (3) permitting allegedly improper argument to be made by the Commonwealth's Attorney.

The Commonwealth's evidence shows that two detectives on July 17, 1971, conducted a surveillance of premises in the City of Norfolk occupied by Dolly's Used Furniture and Antiques, a business operated by Blount's wife, Dolly. They observed Blount come out of the shop, look around and go back inside. About fifteen minutes later Alton Wilson, known to the officers as a user of narcotics, came out of Dolly's and drove off in an automobile that had been parked in front of the store.

After following Wilson for several miles the officers stopped him and found fifty capsules of heroin in his car. They arrested him and charged him with possession of heroin with intent to distribute it. Subsequently, Blount was indicted for selling the heroin to Wilson.

At Blount's trial Wilson was the principal witness for the Commonwealth. He testified that he purchased the fifty capsules of heroin from Blount and intended to resell them to addicts. He also testified that he had received no promise of reward or special consideration for testifying, although he admitted that the case against him had been nol prossed. Obviously, the Commonwealth's case against Blount depended on Wilson's credibility. If Wilson's testimony was credible there was sufficient evidence to support Blount's conviction. Blount did not testify and no evidence was introduced on his behalf.

Blount offered Instruction C2--A reading in pertinent part as follows:

'Although one or more witnesses may positively testify as to an alleged fact and although said statement may not be contradicted by witnesses, the jury may altogether disregard said statement if you believe the same to be Improbable or untrue.' (Emphasis added.)

[213 Va. 809] Over objection the trial court, before granting the instruction, deleted the words 'improbable or', to which action Blount has assigned error.

The instruction was based upon the exception to the general rule that where an unimpeached witness testifies positively to a fact and is uncontradicted the jury may not discredit his testimony. As given, but not as tendered, the instruction was a correct statement of the exception. The jury could but did not have to believe Wilson's uncontradicted testimony.

Page 695

Whether or not the witness is contradicted the test is still credibility, as determined by the jury.

If the statements of an uncontradicted witness are 'inherently improbable', Stegall v. Commonwealth, 208 Va. 719, 722, 160 S.E.2d 566, 568 (1968), or 'grossly improbable', Presley v. Commonwealth, 185 Va. 261, 266, 38 S.E.2d 476, 478 (1946), the jury may disbelieve him. But the exception only means that uncontradicted testimony may be disregarded if the jury...