Long v. Com.

Decision Date18 April 1995
Docket NumberNo. 2187-93-2,2187-93-2
CourtVirginia Court of Appeals
PartiesJoseph Isisah LONG, a/k/a David Munds v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. Record

Theodore Tondrowski, Richmond (Bowen & Bowen, on brief), for appellant.

(James S. Gilmore, III, Atty. Gen., Rhonda McGarvey, Asst. Atty. Gen., on brief), for appellee.

Present: MOON, C.J., and COLEMAN and BRAY, JJ.

MOON, Chief Judge.

Appellant, Joseph Isisah Long, a/k/a David Munds (Long), was convicted of three offenses: (1) possession of heroin; (2) possession of a firearm while in possession of heroin (firearm/heroin); and (3) possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony (firearm/felony). Although the charges against Long all stemmed from a single transaction, we hold that the trial court erred in refusing to sever the firearm/felony charge from the other two charges because justice required severance under Rule 3A:10(b).

While pursuing Long, the police officer saw Long drop a black object and a silver object near a fence about forty feet from where Long was subdued. The officer returned to where the objects were dropped and found a dark colored gun, a roll of coins wrapped in aluminum foil, and three rounds of "380 ammo." A few minutes later, two rounds of "380 ammo" were found where Long was subdued. Police also discovered heroin in Long's possession when they searched him incident to his arrest.

Prior to trial, Long filed a motion to be tried separately on the firearm/felony charge from the other two offenses. He argued that to try the firearm/felony charge with the others would unduly prejudice him in the minds of the jury by letting them know that he had previously been convicted of a felony, which was irrelevant to the possession of heroin and firearm/heroin charge. We must decide whether, under the circumstances, the trial court erred in denying Long's motion.

A trial court has limited discretion to order an accused to be tried for more than one offense at the same time. Rule 3A:10(b). The court may exercise this discretion only when justice does not "require separate trials" and (1) the Commonwealth's attorney and the accused consent to the charges being tried together or (2) the offenses meet the requirements of Rule 3A:6(b). Rule 3A:10(b).

Godwin v. Commonwealth, 6 Va.App. 118, 121, 367 S.E.2d 520, 521-22 (1988) (other citations omitted).

To meet the requirements of Rule 3A:6(b), the offenses must be based on "the same act or transaction, or on two or more acts or transactions that are connected or constitute parts of a common scheme or plan." Rule 3A:6(b). A further limitation on the trial court's discretion to try two or more charges together is that "justice does not require separate trials." 3A:10(b). 1 Justice often requires separate trials where highly prejudicial evidence of one of the crimes is not admissible in the trial of the other. Godwin, 6 Va.App. at 123, 367 S.E.2d at 522.

In this case, the charges against Long met the requirements of Rule 3A:6(b) because they arose from the same transaction. However, justice required that Long be tried separately on the firearm/felony charge.

Absent well established exceptions not applicable here, evidence that a defendant has committed crimes other than the offense for which he is being tried is inadmissible. See Lewis v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 497, 502, 303 S.E.2d 890, 892-93 (1983); King v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 912, 914, 234 S.E.2d 67, 69 (1977). Evidence of Long's prior felony conviction would not have been admissible in a trial on the possession of heroin and firearm/heroin possession charges, unless Long put his character or credibility in issue. Long's motive, intent, or knowledge were not at issue. The general scheme exception would also be inapplicable to the charges against Long.

When the jury hears that a defendant has been convicted of a felony, a fact not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Luginbyhl v. Com.
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals
    • 4 Abril 2006
    ...a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction"); see also Long v. Commonwealth, 20 Va.App. 223, 227, 456 S.E.2d 138, 140 (1995) (holding that the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden of proving that the error in severing charges for tria......
  • Scott v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals
    • 18 Julio 2006
    ...although factually relevant, would be inadmissible during the individual trials of the separate offenses. See Long v. Commonwealth, 20 Va.App. 223, 226, 456 S.E.2d 138, 139 (1995) ("Justice often requires separate trials where highly prejudicial evidence of one of the crimes is not admissib......
  • Hackney v. Com.
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals
    • 9 Diciembre 1997
    ...separate trials under Rule 3A:10 "where evidence of one crime is not admissible in the trial of the others." Long v. Commonwealth, 20 Va.App. 223, 226-27, 456 S.E.2d 138, 139 (1995); Johnson v. Commonwealth, 20 Va.App. 49, 56, 455 S.E.2d 261, 265 Generally, evidence that a defendant has com......
  • Winslow v. Clarke
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • 8 Septiembre 2016
    ...separate trials are required "where evidence of one crime is not admissible in the trial of the others," Long v. Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 223, 226-27, 456 S.E.2d 138, 139 (1995); Johnson v. Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 49, 56, 455 S.E.2d 261, 265 (1995), the facts of this case shows the testi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT