Reed v. Com., 1189-85
| Decision Date | 17 February 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 1189-85,1189-85 |
| Citation | 3 Va.App. 665,353 S.E.2d 166 |
| Parties | Timothy L. REED v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. Record |
| Court | Virginia Court of Appeals |
John W. Dozier, Jr., Richmond, for appellant.
Thomas C. Daniel, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Mary Sue Terry, Atty. Gen., on brief), for appellee.
Present: BAKER, BENTON and KEENAN, JJ.
A grand jury in the City of Richmond returned an indictment against Timothy L. Reed (appellant) which charged that he The relevant portion of the code section referenced in the indictment reads as follows:
It shall be unlawful for a prisoner in a state, local or community correctional facility or in the custody of an employee thereof to....
2. Willfully break, cut or damage any building, furniture, fixture or fastening of such facility or any part thereof for the purpose of escaping, aiding any other prisoner to escape therefrom or rendering such facility less secure as a place of confinement....
For violation of any of the provisions of this section, the prisoner shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony (emphasis added).
Appellant was arraigned in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond (trial court), waived trial by jury and was tried by the court. He was found guilty and sentenced to three years in the penitentiary. From that judgment he appeals to this court. The question of sufficiency of evidence is not before us, as the panel which granted this appeal limited the question to the error here assigned, to-wit: that the "trial court erred in permitting the Commonwealth to amend the indictment to include an allegation of purpose or intent to render the penitentiary less secure as a place of confinement." We have examined the record in this case and we find that it does not disclose a motion to amend nor that the indictment was in fact amended as alleged by appellant.
At the conclusion of the Commonwealth's evidence appellant moved for dismissal of the charges on the ground that the phrase "for the purpose of" was not stated in the body of the indictment. After the trial court overruled his motion appellant rested without presenting any evidence on his behalf. He then renewed his motion to dismiss for the same reason previously stated, and was again overruled.
The indictment incorporated by reference the provisions of Code § 53.1-203(2). The inference to be drawn from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schwartz v. Com.
...561, 565 (1946). We also consider as "incorporated by reference" the statutes cited in the indictment. Reed v. Commonwealth, 3 Va.App. 665, 667, 353 S.E.2d 166, 167-68 (1987). A. Murder Count one of the indictment, on which appellant was prosecuted for murder, alleged, in pertinent part, th......
-
Walshaw v. Com.
...also requires the indictment to "cite the statute or ordinance that defines the offense ...." See also Reed v. Commonwealth, 3 Va.App. 665, 667, 353 S.E.2d 166, 167-68 (1987). "[T]he inference to be drawn from the provisions of Code § 19.2-220 and Rule 3A:6(a) is clearly that incorporation ......
- Cregger v. Com., 0908-96-3
-
Purvy v. Commonwealth
...by reference. Again, we agree. See, e.g., Thomas v. Commonwealth, 37 Va.App. 748, 753, 561 S.E.2d 56, 58 (2002); Reed v. Commonwealth, 3 Va.App. 665, 667, 353 S.E.2d 166, 167–68 (1987); see also Alston v. Commonwealth, 32 Va.App. 661, 665, 529 S.E.2d 851, 853 (2000). But when the descriptiv......