Cameron v. Com.
| Decision Date | 15 June 1970 |
| Citation | 211 Va. 108,175 S.E.2d 275 |
| Parties | Herman Roosevelt CAMERON v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Joseph F. Spinella, Richmond (Spinella & Spinella, Richmond, on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
A. R. Woodroof, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Robert Y. Button, Atty. Gen., Gordon A. Wilkins, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., on the brief), for defendant in error.
Before SNEAD, C.J., and I'ANSON, CARRICO, GORDON, HARRISON, COCHRAN and HARMAN, JJ.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the trial court, after a waiver of trial by jury, finding the defendant, Herman Roosevelt Cameron, guilty of robbery by violence from the person of Mrs. Diane Marie Bishop. He was sentenced to five years in the state penitentiary with two years of this sentence suspended.
The only question before us is whether the evidence of the identity of the defendant, as one of the persons who robbed the victim, is sufficient to sustain his conviction.
The evidence discloses that on March 13, 1968, shortly after 6:00 p.m., Mrs. Bishop entered the lobby of the Sixth Street Garage, located at Sixth and Marshall Streets in Richmond, where her car was parked. After entering the lobby she walked between two Negro boys who had their backs turned toward her. As she walked toward the elevator one of the boys grabbed her in a stranglehold from behind and told the other boy to grab her purse. The second boy wrestled the purse from Mrs. Bishop's arm and, after throwing her to the floor, the two boys ran out the Sixth Street exit.
Mr. Harold Horsley, who was walking down Sixth Street toward the lobby of the garage, saw two Negro boys run from the Sixth Street exit of the building and shortly thereafter he provided the police with a description of the youths' clothing.
The description, which was broadcast over the police radio, was that the suspects were 'two colored males, one short and one tall, the taller wearing dark pants, a white coat and a brown derby type hat, the smaller one wearing light pants, a brown coat and a white sailor type hat with the brim turned down.'
On the basis of this description, Herman Cameron and a companion, Haywood Cook, were apprehended eight blocks from the scene of the robbery approximately 35 minutes after the robbery took place. At that time Cameron, who is taller than Cook, was wearing a 'white, dirty, tan jacket,' grey pants and a brownish hat. He also had a black cap in his pocket. Cook was wearing a brownish three-quarter-length coat, light tan pants and 'a dirty white sailor type cap pulled down with a red and grey band around it.'
The suspects were taken to police headquarters and Mr. Horsley was brought there to determine whether he could identify them. The two suspects were seated in the detective division and Mr. Horsley was asked to walk down the corridor past the point where they were seated. After doing so and viewing the two suspects he was unable to identify them as the boys he had seen running from the garage lobby. The suspects were then directed to stand up with their backs to Mr. Horsley and with their caps on. Mr. Horsley once again walked down the corridor and this time identified the suspects by their clothing. This identification took place approximately two hours after the robbery. The suspects were not placed in a lineup nor were there any other persons in the corridor similar in size and age to Cook and the defendant.
Mr. Horsley testified that the suspects' hats were what caught his attention but he admitted that there was nothing particularly unusual about the hats. He also testified that he couldn't be positive that these were the same two boys who came out of the garage. He could only say that they were wearing the same type of clothes.
The only description Mrs. Bishop could give of the boys who robbed her was that 'one boy was taller than the other, one of them had on some sort of a cap, it looked as if it might have been a sailor type cap.' She testified that she did not see their facial features and that she could not identify the defendant as one of the boys who was in the garage lobby. She did state, however, that he appeared to be the same size and build as one of the two who robbed her.
Mrs. Bishop's purse contained approximately one dollar in change at the time it was stolen. At the time of their arrest, one of the boys had a quarter and one had a penny. The purse, from which the money had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stamper v. Baskerville
...S.E.2d 777, 779 (1979). 2 Virginia law requires the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Cameron v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 108, 110, 175 S.E.2d 275, 276 (1970). 3 Corrosion of the pistol made impossible a positive determination that the bullets were or were not fired from t......
-
Kelly v. Commonwealth of Virginia
...inferred because the facts are consistent with his guilt, but they must be inconsistent with his innocence." Cameron v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 108, 110-11, 175 S.E.2d 275, 276 (1970). Suspicious circumstances "'no matter how grave or strong, are not proof of guilt sufficient to support a ver......
-
Crawford v. Com.
...inferred because the facts are consistent with his guilt, but they must be inconsistent with his innocence. Cameron v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 108, 110-11, 175 S.E.2d 275, 276 (1970); see Reese v. Commonwealth, 230 Va. 172, 335 S.E.2d 266, 268 (1985) ("The evidence gives rise to suspicion of ......
-
Pease v. Commonwealth
...inferred because the facts are consistent with his guilt, but they must be inconsistent with his innocence. Cameron v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 108, 110-11, 175 S.E.2d 275, 276 (1970) (citations omitted) (emphasis added). In short, as here, where "inferences are relied upon to establish guilt,......