Brown v. Com.
| Decision Date | 12 October 1970 |
| Citation | 176 S.E.2d 813,211 Va. 252 |
| Parties | Marshall J. BROWN v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Daniel E. Bray, Jr., Richmond, for plaintiff in error.
William G. Broaddus, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Andrew P. Miller, Atty. Gen., Walter H. Ryland, Asst. Atty. Gen., on brief), for defendant in error.
Before SNEAD, C.J., and I'ANSON, CARRICO, GORDON, HARRISON and HARMAN, JJ.
Marshall J. Brown, defendant, was indicted for statutory burglary. He pleaded not guilty to the crime charged and waived trial by jury. At the conclusion of the Commonwealth's evidence and again at the conclusion of all the evidence defendant moved to strike the Commonwealth's evidence on the ground that a 'prima facie' case had not been proven. The trial court overruled defendant's motion, found him guilty as charged and fixed his punishment at confinement in the State Penitentiary for a term of three years. From that judgment we granted Brown a writ of error.
The sole question for our determination is whether the evidence presented is sufficient to sustain the conviction.
The evidence may be summarized as follows:
In the evening of December 29, 1968, James E. Clark, manager of a restaurant known as 'Sam's Place' located at 1329 Grayland avenue in Richmond, entered the premises, turned on two lights within and an outside light over the entrance door. He then locked the door and proceeded to a Chinese restaurant in the area to get some money changed. On the way he observed an acquaintance, John Easley, and five or six other men whom he did not recognize. Easley and Clark spoke to each other.
After getting his money changed Clark returned to his restaurant at approximately 7:40 p.m. When he reached a point across the street from the restaurant Clark saw a man in the building he recognized as Easley and he then started shooting at him. Clark heard Easley call to a companion, 'let's go'. The two men ran out the front door and turned into an alley. Clark gave chase but was unable to apprehend either of them. He went back to his restaurant and called the police. He observed that entry to the building by the burglars was gained by breaking the glass in the front door which had been 'jimmied'; that an undetermined amount of money was taken from the juke box, and that about two dollars in change was taken from the cash register. He also found a billfold on the sidewalk about three feet in front of the door from which Easley and his companion had escaped. The billfold contained an identification card and other effects admittedly belonging to Brown, the defendant.
According to Detective J. E. Robinson, Clark described Easley's companion as 'a small featured young man' and of 'small build', but 'he didn't get a good look at his face at all'.
On the morning following the burglary Detective Robinson, who had Brown's billfold in his possession, observed Easley, Brown and two other men walk into the 'State Loan' office in Richmond. Robinson followed them and placed Easley and Brown, a small featured young man, under arrest for burglarizing 'sam's Place'. After being advised of his constitutional rights, Brown denied to Robinson that he had any knowledge of the break-in. He said he was not at the scene and that he had previously lost his billfold. A search of his person revealed that he had approximately three dollars in change in his inside coat pocket.
The defendant did not testify, but he offered two witnesses, Sevilla Brown, his grandmother, and James Brown, his brother, to testify concerning the loss of his billfold. Mrs. Brown stated that defendant told her before his arrest that he had lost his bullfold and requested her to look for it. James Brown testified that Mrs. Brown asked him 'about the wallet' and he told her he did not know where it was.
The Commonwealth's evidence against Brown is wholly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McMillan v. Com.
...and to a moral certainty." Gordon v. Commonwealth, 212 Va. 298, 300, 183 S.E.2d 735, 737 (1971) (quoting Brown v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 252, 255, 176 S.E.2d 813, 815 (1970)). Upon application of the aforementioned principles, we hold that the evidence in this case is sufficient to establish......
-
Taylor v. Commonwealth
...and to a moral certainty." Gordon v. Commonwealth, 212 Va. 298, 300, 183 S.E.2d 735, 737 (1971) (quoting Brown v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 252, 255, 176 S.E.2d 813, 815 (1970)).McMillan, 277 Va. at 19, 671 S.E.2d at 400. Appellant compares his case to Pemberton, Boley, and Cordon. In Pemberton......
-
Hargraves v. Com.
...and to a moral certainty.'" Gordon v. Commonwealth, 212 Va. 298, 300, 183 S.E.2d 735, 736 (1971) (quoting Brown v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 252, 255, 176 S.E.2d 813, 815 (1970)). The Commonwealth must point evidence of acts, statements, or conduct of the accused or other facts or circumstances......
-
Myers v. Com., Record No. 1581-03-2.
...and to a moral certainty."'" Gordon v. Commonwealth, 212 Va. 298, 300, 183 S.E.2d 735, 737 (1971) (quoting Brown v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 252, 255, 176 S.E.2d 813, 815 (1970)). On appellate review, the issue is whether a reasonable jury, upon consideration of all the evidence in the light m......