Ford v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 09 June 1941
• Citation: 15 S.E.2d 50
• Parties: FORD. v. COMMONWEALTH.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

15 S.E.2d 50

FORD.

v.COMMONWEALTH.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

June 9, 1941.

Error to Circuit Court, Amherst County; Edward Meeks, Judge.

Ruth Ford was convicted of the statutory crime of bribery, and she brings error.

Affirmed.

Argued before CAMPBELL, C. J., and HOLT, HUDGINS, GREGORY, EGGLE-STON, and SPRATLEY, JJ.

J. T. Coleman, Jr., of Lovingston, for plaintiff in error.

Abram P. Staples, Atty. Gen., and Edwin H. Gibson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth.

SPRATLEY, Justice.

The plaintiff in error, Mrs. Ruth Ford, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was convicted of the statutory crime of bribery and sentenced to two years in the state penitentiary. She asks this court to set aside the judgment of conviction, upon the grounds that it is not supported by the evidence and that the verdict of the jury is contrary to the law and the evidence.

Virginia Code 1936, section 4496, defining bribery is, in part, as follows:

"If any person corruptly give, offer, or promise to any executive, legislative, or judicial officer, or to any candidate for such office, and either before or after he shall have qualified, or shall have taken his seat, any gift or gratuity, with intent to influence his act, vote, opinion, decision, or judgment on any matter, question, cause, or proceeding, which is or may be then pending, or may by law come or be brought before him in his official capacity, he shall, upon conviction, be confined in the penitentiary not less than one nor more than ten years. * * *"

Proceeding under the above section, a grand jury returned an indictment against Mrs. Ford charging that she "did unlawfully, feloniously and corruptly offer to pay to H. C. Matthews, an executive officer, a duly elected and qualified constable for * * *, sworn to discharge and perform the duties of said office, the sum of six dollars per week, to be paid to him as such executive officer, with intent to influence his acts as said Constable, she then and there well knowing the official character of said executive officer, H. C. Matthews; and so * * *, in manner and form aforesaid, did attempt and endeavor to bribe the said H. C. Matthews, an executive officer and Constable as aforesaid, to neglect and omit to do his duty as such Constable, * * * "

At the trial, H. C. Matthews, the constable, testified that he stopped at the home of Mrs. Ford about seven p. m. on Sunday night, September 29, 1940, in response to a message he had received from her; that she began talking to him about collecting a claim which she said a man named Via owed her; that, during the course of their conversation and after asking him whether he was paid a salary or commission, she said to him: "You know we are selling whiskey. You know that as well as I do. The people who bring whiskey here are beginning to get scared and if you will give us protection I will see that you are paid $6.00 a week for this protection." She also said that she know that the constable and other officers would have to make a raid sometime, but that he could manage this so that she would be notified in advance. No money was paid or tendered to the constable. She said that the money would be paid weekly in equal proportion by herself and two other named men. Matthews told her that he would let her know later about the proposition. He thereafter reported the matter to the Commonwealth's Attorney of Amherst County. The officer stated that no one was present but himself and Mrs. Ford when their conversation took place.

Mrs. Ford denied all of the statements of the officer, except that relating to the collection of her claim against Via. Her brother-in-law and another man testified that they were present during the interview between Mrs. Ford and the constable, and that Mrs. Ford did not say anything about whiskey or paying for protection. The record does not show that any criminal charge was then pending against Mrs. Ford or her associates.

The jury, after being fully instructed, returned a verdict finding Mrs. Ford "guilty of bribery as charged in the indictment * * *." A motion to set aside the verdict as contrary to the law and the evidence and for misdirection of the jury was overruled. No ground of objection was made to the wording of the verdict.

There is little need to dwell at length upon the questions of fact. The evidence of the witness for the Commonwealth was direct, positive and substantial. The jury resolved the issue of fact against the accused. They had the right to accept the evidence of one witness and to reject that of the defendant and the other witnesses. This was within their peculiar province, a province that this court cannot usurp. She cannot be heard to successfully complain that she and her witnesses ought to have been believed instead of the constable.

In the second assignment of error, the defendant contends that Code, section 4496, docs not embrace an offer to pay for protection for an offense to be thereafter committed, or to pay an officer for his failure to perform his duty in the future; but only applies as it affects the performance of his duty in connection with a charge pending against the promisor or someone else at the time the offer is made.

The comprehensive and...