Crosby v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 19 January 1922 |
| Parties | CROSBY . v. COMMONWEALTH. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Error to Corporation Court of Norfolk.
Lee Crosby was convicted of an illegal sale of intoxicating liquor, and brings error. Affirmed.
N. T. Green, of Norfolk, for plaintiff in error.
John R. Saunders, Atty. Gen., and J. D. Hank, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth.
PRENTIS, J. Lee Crosby has been convicted of the illegal sale of intoxicating liquor. Robert Watkins, a witness for the commonwealth, testified that the accused, in his house, sold him half a pint of whisky; that immediately thereafter, as he was walking along a public street in the city of Norfolk, going towards his own home, he was arrested for the unlawful transportation of such whisky, and that he was under indictment therefor. Dickins, a police officer, testified that he saw Watkins go into the house of the accused, remain three or four minutes, then come out and walk down the street; that he found in his possession half a pint of whisky; that just before he saw Watkins go into the house he saw the accused come to the window and look in both directions up and down the street. The only conflicting testimony is that of the accused, to the effect that he had not sold the whisky to Watkins.
Only one error is assigned, namely, that the accused, by his attorney, moved the court to instruct the jury orally to the effect that, the said Watkins being an accomplice with the said defendant in the sale of the whisky, his testimony should be received with caution, which request was refused by the court. It may be assumed that Watkins was an accomplice, and of this we have no doubt (State v. Ryan, 1 Boyce [Del.] 223, 75 Atl. 869; People v. Coffey, 161 Cal. 433, 119 Pac. 901, 39 L. R. A. [N. S.] 704), and therefore the court should have given an instruction which embodied the principle contended for. The rule in this jurisdiction is that the jury, as triers of the fact, may, if they are satisfied of the guilt of the accused, convict him upon the uncorroborated testimony of a single accomplice, though it is well settled that the evidence of an accomplice should be received and acted upon by a jury with great caution. Hunt v. Commonwealth, 126 Va. 819, 101 S. E. 896. While in this case the court should have supplied the omission in the instruction, and as amended have given it to the jury, still, in view of the evidence, we decline to hold the failure to do so to be reversible error. It clearly appears that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holmes v. Commonwealth
...establish all essential elements of an offense." Id. An example of the "relation to guilt" standard was outlined in Crosby v. Commonwealth , 132 Va. 518, 110 S.E. 270 (1922). In that case, Crosby was charged with illegally selling alcohol, which he denied. Id. at 520, 110 S.E. 270. "An acco......
-
Adkins v. Commonwealth
...liquor, he does not assist or abet the seller in making the sale. "In Virginia no such reasoning was persuasive. In Crosby v. Commonwealth, 1922, 132 Va. 518, 110 S.E. 270 [271], the purchaser of liquor sold in violation of statute was held to be an accomplice to the crime, the Court statin......
-
Johnson v. Com.
...Id. at 823, 224 S.E.2d at 139-40 (emphasis in original). The facts in the instant case are very similar to those in Crosby v. Commonwealth, 132 Va. 518, 110 S.E. 270 (1922). Crosby was charged with the illegal sale of liquor. Id. at 519, 110 S.E. at 271. The accomplice testified Crosby sold......
-
Adkins v. Commonwealth
...liquor, he does not assist or abet the seller in making the sale. "In Virginia no such reasoning was persuasive. In Crosby Commonwealth (1922), 132 Va. 518, 110 S.E. 270, the purchaser of liquor sold in violation of statute was held to be an accomplice to the crime, the Court stating that `......