United States v. Mullen
Decision Date | 28 December 1967 |
Docket Number | Cr. No. 13323. |
Citation | 278 F. Supp. 410 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Vernon Lee MULLEN. |
James A. Oast, Esquire and Alfred Swersky, Asst. U. S. Atty., Norfolk, Va., for plaintiff.
Henry Kowalchick (Court Appointed), Norfolk, Va., for defendant.
Defendant was tried before a jury upon a charge that he did break and enter a certain building housing First and Second Class Petty Officers Mess Open, U. S. Naval Air Station, Oceana, with intent to commit larceny (Title 18, Section 13, U.S.C.A. and Title 18.1, Section 89, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended). The jury returned a verdict of guilty. Defendant moved the Court to set aside the verdict and enter judgment of acquittal. The motion Challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.
Much of the evidence was circumstantial. Briefly stated, the evidence established these facts.
The scene of the crime was the rear of the Acey-Ducey Club, Oceana Naval Air Station, owned by the United States and operated by the United States Navy. Entrance to the site of the club was gained through a gate shown in "Government Exhibit 2". This photo shows a sign posted at the entrance, "No Visitors—All Delivery Vehicles proceed to Main Gate Except Club Vehicles". Government Exhibit 1 shows a large sign posted near the above mentioned entrance, "N.A.S. Oceana, North Gate".
At 2:30 A.M. in the morning of August 19, 1967, Special Police Officer Schimmel (employed at the Base), while on patrol of the area, as he approached the rear of the Acey-Ducey Club observed a black Plymouth. At about the same time he spied two men in the rear of the building start to run. He observed one of them drop an object. When the object was later found it turned out to be a metal tire iron. One of the men ran behind an oil tank. As Schimmel approached he observed the man lying flat behind the tank and in "considerable quantity of water which had collected in a low area". He came out upon order, after Schimmel had drawn his gun (Schimmel had previously fired one shot in the air to try to stop the men). The man was dressed in heavy gloves (although this was August and he was not employed to perform any labor). Schimmel discovered a man asleep in the Plymouth. In the Plymouth Station Wagon the officer found a sledgehammer, a claw hammer, a hacksaw and pliers. When F.B.I. Agent Don Ray arrived he located the tire iron above referred to near the oil tank where defendant was concealed. He took samples of the window paint which were sent with the tire iron to the F.B.I. Bureau for testing. Paint similar to the samples taken from the window which had been pried open was found on the tire iron.
It was established that the building in question was locked and all windows closed when the assistant manager left the premises late the night of August 18, 1967, or early the morning of August 19, 1967. When the manager came to the Club after being called on the early morning of August 19th, he observed footprints on the tops of tables in the Club, a window open, and damage to a hasp and lock on an inside door leading to the room where cigarettes are kept.
After being warned of his rights, defendant told one of the F.B.I. Agents he had been at a pool hall earlier that evening and that he gave a man $2.00 to drive him home in the Plymouth and that when he was observed by Schimmel he was in the process of being robbed. The evidence established that the station wagon in question belonged to Thornton Johnson, who had loaned it to his son, Joseph Johnson. Earlier that evening defendant had been in a place called "Queenies" in Norfolk in company of Joseph Johnson, Barbara Vaughan, and one Clark (the one found asleep in the wagon at the AceyDucey Club); that defendant, Clark and Johnson were all in the wagon when Barbara was driven home in Norfolk about 10:00 or 10:30 P.M. on August 18, 1967.
"Government Exhibit 3" shows the raised window, the window pried open to gain entrance to the building; "Exhibit 4" shows the window leading to the room where cigarettes were kept. A visual look is better than words can explain.
There is no question that there was a breaking and entry. Likewise the intent is clear. Defendant says the evidence does not meet the required burden to connect him with the crime.
The evidence, facts and circumstances must be construed in the light most favorable to the Government and the finding of a jury must be upheld if there is evidence to support it. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 at page 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680, Moore v. United States, 271 F.2d 564 (4th Cir. 1959), United States v. Luxenberg, 374 F.2d 241 (6th Cir. 1967).
When Officer Schimmel approached defendant he (and another man with him) fled. The jury had a right to consider this circumstance as tending to show consciousness of guilt on the part of defendant. United States v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 267 F.Supp. 316 (E.D.Pa.1966), Nance v. Commonwealth, 203 Va. 428, 124 S.E.2d 900, Sturgis v. Commonwealth, 197 Va. 264, 88 S.E.2d 919, Bowie v. Commonwealth, 184 Va. 381, 35 S.E.2d 345, Duty v. Commonwealth (1923) 137 Va. 759, 119 S.E. 62. In United States v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, supra, at page 319, the Court said:
In Duty v. Commonwealth, supra, 119 S.E. at page 64 the Court said:
See also Nance v. Commonwealth, supra, where the Court at page 904 said:
There is no question of the fact that a charge of breaking into a building may be founded on circumstantial evidence. In Fout v. Commonwealth, 199 Va. 184, 185, 98 S.E.2d 817, at page 821:
The finding of the burglarious tools was a circumstance to be considered by the jury. See Wilborne v. Commonwealth, 182 Va. 63, 28 S.E.2d 1, 3, where the Court said:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Thompson v. Slayton, Civ. A. No. 71-C-38-L.
...doctrine has been frequently applied to seizures involving automobiles. See e. g. Harris v. United States, supra; United States v. Mullen, 278 F.Supp. 410 (E.D. Va.1967) aff'd 416 F.2d 456 (4th Cir. 1969); Carter v. Commonwealth, 209 Va. 317, 163 S.E.2d 589 (1968) cert. den. 394 U.S. 991, 8......
-
Smith v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
... ... STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY ... Civ. A. No. 6018 ... United States District Court E. D. Tennessee, N. D ... Memorandum December 19, 1967 ... Supplemental ... ...
-
Joyce v. Com.
...v. Commonwealth, 196 Va. 210, 216, 83 S.E.2d 369, 373; Merritt v. Commonwealth, 164 Va. 653, 662, 180 S.E. 395, 399; United States v. Mullen, D.C., 278 F.Supp. 410. From the circumstances shown by the evidence the jury could certainly have concluded that Joyce's purpose in entering the hous......