Leebrick v. Com., s. 4568
| Citation | 198 Va. 365,94 S.E.2d 212 |
| Decision Date | 04 September 1956 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 4568,4569,s. 4568 |
| Parties | FRANKLIN LEEBRICK v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. CHARLES ALLEN v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. Record |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Douglas M. Eger, for plaintiff in error, Leebrick. J. Murrell Daniel, for plaintiff in error, Allen.
C. F. Hicks, Assistant Attorney General, (J. Lindsay Almond, Jr., Attorney General, on brief), for the Commonwealth.
Franklin Leebrick and Charles Allen were tried jointly on separate indictments charging each with breaking and entering the storehouse of Hollins Mill Road Drive-In with intent to steal and stealing therefrom certain personal property. Each was found guilty of 'statutory burglary as charged . . .' and the punishment fixed at two years confinement in the penitentiary.
The decisive question raised is whether the evidence is sufficient to support the verdicts.
The uncontradicted testimony for the Commonwealth proves that on July 27, 1955, between 3 A.M. and 9:45 A.M. someone broke into the storehouse of Hollins Mill Road Drive-In, owned by George Kaiynski and Virgil Naff, located in the City of Lynchburg, and stole therefrom $15.00 in money, 'one boning knife, one box of cigars, two flashlights of the total aggregate value of $50,00.' This establishes beyond a reasonable doubt the corpus delicti of both the breaking and entering, and the larceny of the goods. The issue is thus narrowed to whether defendants were proven to have been the criminal agents.
There is no conflict in the testimony on this point. It is stated in narrative form and is as follows:
Mrs. J. T. Burks testified that she is an aunt of Charles Allen and lives at 808 N. Norwood Street in Lynchburg; that Allen, who was then 18 years of age, and Franklin Leebrick, 19 years of age, stayed in her home watching a television program until 11:30 on the night of July 26th and then both left. She did not see them again until approximately 6 A.M. on July 27th, when they were both asleep on a glider on her porch. Later in the day Ernest Sprouse and Bobby Wade, two boys 16 and 10 years of age, respectively, went under Mrs. Burks' house and porch to get their fishing tackle and there found some of the stolen goods, including a ham, which was identified as being one of the articles stolen the night before from the storehouse of the Hollins Mill Road Drive-In. They reported their discovery to Mrs. Burks, who notified police officers. Two of them immediately went to her home, took possession of the stolen goods, and while they were on the porch discussing the theft with Mrs. Burks the two defendants passed, were arrested and charged with breaking and entering. They were taken to the police station and there were asked repeatedly about the crime. Each denied any knowledge of the crime.
This testimony merely proves that defendants could have walked from one side of Lynchburg to the other, broken and entered the storehouse of Hollins Mill Road Drive-In and carried the stolen goods to Mrs. Burks' home and placed them under the porch before 6 A.M., but the testimony falls far short of proving that the defendants did any of these things or that they, or either of them, had exclusive possession of, or claimed a property interest in, any of the stolen articles. The testimony merely shows that the stolen goods were found under the porch where defendants slept. It is not denied that in order to gain access to and possession of the stolen goods it was necessary to go down the steps of the porch, walk around the house and enter the basement from a side opening that was never closed, and that several boys living in the neighborhood with the knowledge and consent of the owners kept their fishing tackle in the basement under the porch, to which they and others had access at all times.
It is well settled that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. Commonwealth, Record No. 2460-02-2 (VA 7/13/2004), Record No. 2460-02-2.
...defendant had access to the goods that were stolen and was seen in the area where the stolen goods were found); Leebrick v. Commonwealth, 198 Va. 365, 94 S.E.2d 212 (1956) (holding that the evidence raised only a strong suspicion of guilt even when the stolen items were found hidden under a......
-
State v. Etchell
...to be the rule in Virginia, whether the charge be simple larceny or theft of property from a dwelling or other building. Leebrick v. Comm., 198 Va. 365, 94 S.E.2d 212; Williams v. Comm., 188 Va. 583, 50 S.E.2d 407. The subject is discussed generally in 12 M.J., Larceny, Section 22, page 22;......
-
Lester v. Com.
...property creates a presumption of guilt, but such possession must be exclusive on the part of the accused." Leebrick v. Commonwealth, 198 Va. 365, 367, 94 S.E.2d 212, 214 (1956). Thus, "the evidence must reveal that the accused was consciously asserting at least a possessory interest in or ......
-
Harris v. Com.
... ... Commonwealth, 29 Gratt. (70 Va.) 796; Bundick v. Commonwealth, 97 Va. 783, 34 S.E. 454; and Leebrick v. Commonwealth, 198 ... Va. 365, 94 S.E.2d 212 to support his position that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction. Suffice it to ... ...