Poulos v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 08 January 1940 |
| Citation | 6 S.E.2d 666 |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | POULOS. v. COMMONWEALTH. |
Error to Circuit Court of City of Suffolk; James L. McLemore, Judge.
William Poulos was convicted of arson, and he brings error.
Reversed and remanded.
Argued before HOLT, HUDGINS, GREGORY, BROWNING, EGGLESTON, and SPRATLEY, JJ.
Thomas L. Woodward, of Suffolk, for plaintiff in error.
Abram P. Staples, Atty. Gen., and Joseph L. Kelly, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth.
William Poulos was indicted for arson, tried, convicted, and sentenced to five years in the penitentiary. There are many assignments of error but the determinative one is whether or not the verdict and judgment are supported by sufficient evidence.
Mary T. Poulos, the wife of the accused, operated a restaurant and soft drink business known as Liberty Luncheonette on West Washington street in Suffolk. This business was conducted in an old frame dwelling which had been to some extent remodeled and enlarged. It was owned by one Joe E. Holland. The accused assisted his wife in the business, attending to the kitchen and performing the duties of cook. The family of the accused resided in the building which had bed-rooms behind the kitchen and on the upper floor. They had a grown daughter (by a former marriage of Mrs. Poulos) named Viola.
On July 18, 1938, between 1 and 2 o'clock A. M., the accused and L. D. Jones were sitting on a bench in an alley between the luncheonette and a garage. Later the accused entered the restaurant building to retire, and some 35 or 40 minutes later Jones heard the sound of cracking glass in the alley. A little while after hearing this noise, he made an investigation and discovered smoke and fire coming from the back window of the luncheonette. The fire alarm was sounded and the fire department with a truck and ladder arrived. The firemen, upon reaching the scene of the fire, discovered the accused on the roof of the building with his step-daughter, Viola. His clothes, consisting of underwear and trousers, were on fire, and he was seriously burned.
After the fire was extinguished, the fire chief made an examination of the building in an effort to discover the cause of the fire. Near the head of the stairway on the second floor, he found a can about three-fourths full of a mixture of gasoline and moth balls. He also ascertained that there had been two fires in the building, one upstairs and the other downstairs, and that there was no connection between them.
The accused was taken to the hospital for treatment and while there and later at his home he was questioned by the deputy state fire marshal concerning the origin of the fire. He told the deputy fire marshal that he knew nothing of the fire downstairs but that he was awakened by smoke and heat while in bed upstairs and that he looked for his step-daughter, Viola, and got her out of her room. His statement to the fire marshal was contradicted byother testimony to the effect that the bed in which the accused was supposed to have slept had not been disturbed.
The accused did not testify in the case. Mary Bembry, a servant, testified that on July 14, 1938, four days before the fire, she had worked for Mrs. Poulos cleaning and spraying the beds with a mixture of gasoline and moth balls. What remained of the fluid was left downstairs, and she intended to return on July 18 to finish this work.
The Commonwealth relies entirely upon circumstantial evidence. In addition to what has been stated, the Commonwealth proved that the creditors of the luncheonette business were pressing for the payment of their claims. It was shown that six different obligations were in the process of collection and that the wife of the accused had borrowed money on household furniture, incurring a total indebtedness of $950. It was also shown that she instituted suits on fire insurance policies which covered the furniture and fixtures to the extent of some $3000. A chattel mortgage securing $200 had been placed on certain furniture by the accused but it was not shown that this furniture was in the building which was burned.
The evidence does not satisfactorily support the verdict and judgment in that it fails to point out definitely the guilty agent beyond a reasonable doubt.
In order to make out a case of arson it is essential not only that the evidence reveal that the fire was of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Commonwealth, Record No. 1078-06-2 (Va. App. 5/29/2007)
...be first established.'" Maughs v. City of Charlottesville, 181 Va. 117, 121, 23 S.E.2d 784, 786 (1943) (quoting Poulos v. Commonwealth, 174 Va. 495, 500, 6 S.E.2d 666, 667 (1940)); see also Caminade v. Commonwealth, 230 Va. 505, 510-11, 338 S.E.2d 846, 849 (1986); Barnett v. Commonwealth, 2......
-
Dammerau v. Com.
...evidence reveal that the fire was of incendiary origin, but it must also point unerringly to the guilty party." Poulos v. Commonwealth, 174 Va. 495, 499, 6 S.E.2d 666, 667 (1940). There is a presumption in the law that a fire is caused by accident, rather than by the deliberate act of an ac......
-
Augustine v. Com., 822244
...When a building is burned, the law presumes the fire was caused by accident rather than by a deliberate act. Poulos v. Commonwealth, 174 Va. 495, 500, 6 S.E.2d 666, 668 (1940). To establish arson, the Commonwealth must prove the fire was of incendiary origin and that the accused was a guilt......
-
Braxton v. Com.
...the fire which burned the Robertson home was of incendiary origin, and that defendant was the guilty agent. Poulos v. Commonwealth, 174 Va. 495, 499, 6 S.E.2d 666, 667 (1940); Stine v. Commonwealth, 162 Va. 856, 867, 174 S.E. 758, 763 There can be little doubt from the evidence presented th......