Walters v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 22 September 1932
• Parties: NEAL WALTERS v. COMMONWEALTH.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Page 903

159 Va. 903

NEAL WALTERS v. COMMONWEALTH.

Supreme Court of Virginia, Staunton.

September 22, 1932.

Present, Campbell, C.J., and Holt, Hudgins, Gregory and Chinn, JJ.

1. INDICTMENTS, INFORMATIONS AND PRESENTMENTS — Indictment Charging Housebreaking and Larceny — General Verdict of Guilty. — It is well settled in Virginia that when an indictment contains but one count, charging housebreaking and larceny, and the verdict is a general one of guilty, the verdict will be considered as one for the major offense of housebreaking.

2. BURGLARY — Evidence Insufficient to Support Verdict for Housebreaking — Case at Bar. — In the instant case accused was charged with housebreaking. The evidence disclosed the breaking and entering of a smokehouse for the theft of meat, and two days later accused assisted in the sale of the meat in Roanoke. It also disclosed the presence of accused at a house, when it was suggested by others, out of the presence of accused, that they steal the meat. It was not shown whether the breaking occurred in the daytime or nighttime. Accused received no part of the money obtained for the meat, and although he was present when the meat was disposed of he immediately upon being notified of the theft reported to the sheriff and the owner of the meat that the meat had been sold in Roanoke, and gave the names of the sellers.

Held: That this evidence was not sufficient to sustain a verdict of conviction.

3. PRESUMPTIONS AND BURDEN OF PROOF — Presumption from Possession of Stolen Goods — Larceny — Housebreaking — Case at Bar. — In the instant case appellant was convicted of housebreaking. The presumption, arising in certain cases from the unexplained exclusive possession of recently stolen goods, that the possessor is the thief, had no application in the instant case, because it was not shown that the accused was in possession of the meat, and even if he had been in possession, it alone, without other inculpatory circumstances, would create no presumption that he was the housebreaker.

4. BURGLARY — Possession of Stolen Goods. — In Virginia it is well settled that the possession of stolen goods is, of itself, not even prima facie evidence of housebreaking or burglary.

5. GRIMINAL LAW — Necessity of Proof beyond a Reasonable Doubt — Weight of Verdict of Jury Approved by Trial Court. — The verdict of a jury, approved by the judgment of the trial court, is accorded great respect by the Supreme Court of Appeals, but the fundamental principle that it is the duty of the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, the guilt of an accused, by competent evidence, is essential to every conviction.

Error to a judgment of the Circuit Court of Wythe county.

The opinion states the case.

Thomas F. Walker, for the plaintiff in error.

John R. Saunders, Attorney-General, and Edwin H. Gibson and Collins Denny, Jr., Assistant Attorneys-General, for the Commonwealth.

GREGORY, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

The accused, Neal Walters, was indicted jointly with Crigger, Hagee and Jones for breaking and entering a certain smokehouse of one Shannahan and stealing therefrom sixteen pieces of meat of the value of $100. He was found guilty by the jury, and his punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for fifteen months. Judgment was entered on the verdict carrying it into effect.

The indictment was drawn under section 4439 of the Code, and contained only one count. It charged housebreaking and larceny. The verdict was a general one finding the accused "guilty." It did not specify whether he was found guilty of housebreaking or larceny. It will be considered as a finding of guilty of housebreaking, the major offense, for it is well settled in Virginia that when an indictment contains but one count, charging housebreaking and larceny, and the verdict is a general one of guilty, the verdict will be considered as one for the major offense of housebreaking. Speers' Case, 17 Gratt. (58 Va.) 574; Vaughan's Case, 17 Gratt. (58 Va.) 576; Myers Com., 132 Va. 746, 111 S.E. 463.

The accused having been convicted of housebreaking, contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction. There are many other points raised by him but the decision of this case rests upon the sufficiency of the evidence and inasmuch as the verdict is not supported by the...