Richards v. Commonwealth, Record No. 3305.

• Decision Date: 12 January 1948
• Docket Number: Record No. 3305.
• Citation: 187 Va. 1
• Parties: T. J. RICHARDS v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Page 1

187 Va. 1

T. J. RICHARDS v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.

Record No. 3305.

Supreme Court of Virginia, Richmond.

January 12, 1948.

Present, Hudgins, C.J., and Gregory, Eggleston, Spratley, Buchanan and Miller, JJ.

INTOXICATING LIQUORS — Evidence — Unlawful Sale — Corroboration of Purchaser — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, a prosecution for selling beer without a license, accused contended that the purchaser was an accomplice of accused and that therefore the trial court committed error in refusing to give an instruction cautioning the jury against conviction on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. A companion of the purchaser testified that the purchaser arrived at accused's place of business without any beer in his possession, that he went into the restaurant of accused and that later he went from the restaurant to a nearby cabin with bottles of beer in his possession and joined the witness.

Held: That the occasion and the opportunity for the crime, as well as the possession of the beer, were established by testimony other than that emanating from the alleged accomplice, so that accused was not convicted upon the uncorroborated testimony of his accomplice and there was no reversible error in the refusal of the trial court to give the instruction.

Error to a judgment of the Circuit Court of Augusta county. Hon. Floridus S. Crosby, judge presiding.

The opinion states the case.

Harry V. Strayer, for the plaintiff in error.

Harvey B. Apperson, Attorney General, and Ballard Baker, for the Commonwealth.

HUDGINS, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court.

The accused was conviced of selling beer without a license, fined $100 and sentenced to confinement in jail for thirty days on a verdict returned by the jury.

The principal assignment of error is the refusal of the trial court to give an instruction cautioning the jury against conviction on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.

The evidence for the Commonwealth is in sharp conflict with the evidence for the accused. The jury rejected the evidence for the accused and based its verdict on the evidence for the Commonwealth, which may be summarized as follows:

The accused operates a restaurant and tourist camp on the highway about three and one-half miles east of Staunton. On December 1, 1946, E. E. Maupin and Mrs. Edith Sager, then employees of the Western State Hospital, went by bus from the hospital to accused's place of business. Upon their arrival, Mrs. Sager went to a cabin some thirty yards from the restaurant to see her sick baby, whom she had left there under the care of Mr. and Mrs. Patrick. Maupin went into the restaurant and bought eight bottles of Piel beer from the accused, who did not have a license to sell it. Within forty minutes Maupin joined Mrs. Sager in the cabin, taking with him two bottles of the beer, which he drank. Later, Maupin and Mrs. Sager returned to the Western State Hospital.

The accused contends that, under prior decisions of this court (Hunt Commonwealth, 126 Va. 815, 101 S.E. 896; Crosby Commonwealth, 132 Va. 518, 110 S.E. 270; Faulkner South Boston, 139 Va. 569, 123 S.E. 358; Guthrie Commonwealth, 171 Va. 461, 198 S.E. 481, 119 A.L.R. 683), Maupin was an accomplice of the accused and that therefore the court committed reversible error in refusing to give an instruction warning the...