Patterson v. Com., 740508
| Decision Date | 28 April 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 740508,740508 |
| Citation | 213 S.E.2d 752,215 Va. 698 |
| Parties | Nathaniel PATTERSON v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. Record |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
C. Thomas Mustian, John Dirffie Tyler, Richmond (Edward E. Lane & Assoc., Inc., Richmond, on brief), for plaintiff in error.
James E. Kulp, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Andrew P. Miller, Atty. Gen., on brief), for defendant in error.
Before I'ANSON, C.J., and CARRICO, HARRISON, COCHRAN, HARMAN, POFF and COMPTON, JJ.
The defendant, Nathaniel Patterson, was indicted for and convicted of breaking and entering in the nighttime the dwelling house of Wilhelmina Horton with intent to commit rape. Punishment was fixed at 15 years in the penitentiary. The sole question on appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to establish the requisite intent to commit rape.
The evidence shows that on a rainy night in July, 1973, the defendant unlawfully entered the Horton residence, in the City of Richmond, through a bathroom window. When Mrs. Horton, who was with her son in another room watching television, heard a noise, she went to her bathroom to investigate. She turned on the bathroom light and, through the half-open shower door, saw a 'dripping' towel hanging from the 'shower bar.' Noticing a shadow behind the shower door, she opened the door and saw the defendant standing in the bathtub, with his arms folded. Because she was wearing only a gown, she 'backed off.' She asked the defendant what he was doing in her house. He put his hand to his mouth 'as if to tell (her) to be quiet' and 'reached out at' her. She screamed and said, 'You better get out of here.' The defendant then 'sorta ran, as if to say he knew' Mrs. Horton was alone in the house. She screamed again, and her son, in coming to her rescue, 'ran into the television.' Upon hearing the resulting noise, the defendant 'went back out the bathroom window.' Mrs. Horton recognized the defendant as the same person who had 'trailed' her home several weeks before the burglary occurred.
It is elementary that where, as here, an indictment charges an offense which consists of an act combined with a particular intent, proof of the intent is essential to conviction. Dixon v. Commonwealth, 197 Va. 380, 382, 89 S.E.2d 344, 345 (1955). Because direct proof is often impossible in this type case, intent may be shown by circumstantial evidence. Existence of the intent, however, cannot be based upon surmise or speculation. Taylor v. Commonwealth, 207 Va. 326, 334, 150...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turner v. Com.
...fact could find Turner acted with an intent to defile Evans only by "resorting to speculation and surmise," Patterson v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. 698, 699, 213 S.E.2d 752, 753 (1975). There is no evidence that Turner overbore Evans' will at any point in the night. Turner did not force Evans to......
-
Servis v. Com.
...consists of an act combined with a particular intent, proof of the intent is essential to the conviction. Patterson v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. 698, 699, 213 S.E.2d 752, 753 (1975). Because direct proof of intent is often impossible, it must be shown by circumstantial evidence. But "[w]here ........
-
Turner v. Commonwealth Of Va.
...Evans, i.e., to engage in sexual contact against her will, only by “resorting to speculation and surmise,” Patterson v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. 698, 699, 213 S.E.2d 752, 753 (1975). Turner's stated purpose for leaving the club with Evans was to wait with her in his vehicle for her friends And......
-
Vincent v. Commonwealth, Record No. 2701-05-4 (Va. App. 11/20/2007)
...which consists of an act combined with a particular intent, proof of the intent is essential to conviction." Patterson v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. 698, 699, 213 S.E.2d 752, 753 (1975). Although the Commonwealth may prove by circumstantial evidence the specific intent to steal, that proof must ......