Wood v. Commonwealth

Decision Date18 November 1926
Citation146 Va. 296
PartiesJOHN WOOD v. COMMONWEALTH.
CourtVirginia Supreme Court

1. COURTS — Jurisdiction of Circuit Court — Circuit Court of Albemarle — University of Virginia. — In the instant case, a prosecution for attempted rape, it was contended that a house on the property of the University of Virginia was under the extension order of 1916, and the amended charter of the city of Charlottesville (Acts of 1922, p. 166), within the city of Charlottesville, and that the Circuit Court of Albemarle county was deprived, by section 5890 of the Code of 1919, of all criminal jurisdiction in cases arising without the city limits. The extension order provided that the property of the University of Virginia should be excluded from the line of annexation. Under section 5890 no property which is not made a part of a city can be said to be within the territorial limits of any city.

Held: That the Circuit Court of Albemarle county has not been deprived, by section 5890 of the Code of 1919, of its jurisdiction in criminal cases arising on the University grounds.

2. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — Extension and Contraction of City Limits — Constitution of 1902, Section 126 — Special ActCity of Charlottesville — University of Virginia. — The Constitution of Virginia, section 126, requires the General Assembly to provide by general law for the extension and contraction of city and town limits, and declares that no special act shall be valid. In the court order of annexation of territory to the city of Charlottesville of 1916, the grounds of the University of Virginia were excluded from the territorial limits of the city. The charter of the city of Charlottesville was amended by Acts of 1920, page 285, and Acts of 1922, page 166. In these legislative amendments the boundaries of the city are given as in the court order of 1916, except that no part of the University of Virginia property is excluded therefrom.

Held: That if it was intended by these amendments to include the grounds of the University of Virginia within the limits of the city of Charlottesville, the amendments are so far unconstitutional.

3. CHANGE OF VENUE — Jury from Another CountyCourt Overruling the Motion of Accused — Conditions Existing at the Time of Trial — Case at Bar. — The right of a prisoner to have a change of venue or a jury from another county depends upon the conditions existing at the time of the trial. In the instant case the motions of accused for a change of venue and for a jury from another county were based upon an order of court removing the prisoner to a jail in another county and reciting that the sheriff had reasonable grounds to believe that an attempt would be made to take the life of or to do bodily harm to the prisoner if he was not removed from the county jail. This order stated the sheriff's views as of September and the trial was not held until the following November. No evidence was introduced to show that the jurors who tried the case were not fair and impartial.

Held: That there was no evidence to justify the court in changing the venue or ordering a jury from another county.

4. CHANGE OF VENUE — Jury from Another County — Burden of Proof. — The burden of proof is upon accused, on a motion for a change of venue or having a jury from another county, to show that the facts and circumstances are such that a fair trial cannot be had.

5. CHANGE OF VENUE — Jury from Another County — Discretion of Trial Court. The trial courts are vested with large discretion when passing on a motion for a change of venue, or for a jury from another county.

6. CHANGE OF VENUE — Jury from Another County — Overruling Motions — Impartial Jury Subsequently Selected. — Where, as in the instant case, motions for a change of venue and for a jury from another county are based on the ground that an impartial jury cannot be obtained in the county, the fact that an impartial jury was subsequently selected therein is conclusive proof that the motion was without foundation.

7. CRIMINAL LAW — Insanity — Inquiry into the Feeble-Mindedness of Accused — Section 4909 of the Code of 1919Case at Bar. — In the instant case the action of the court in refusing to inquire into the feeble-mindedness of accused under section 4909 of the Code of 1919 was assigned as error. Section 4909 of the Code of 1919 places no obligation upon the court to appoint a commission except where the court or attorney for the Commonwealth has reason to believe that the person to be tried is in such mental condition that his confinement in a hospital for the insane, or colony for the feeble-minded, for proper care and observation is necessary to attain the ends of justice.

Held: That while the Supreme Court of Appeals has the power to review the action of the trial court in such cases, it will not disturb its rulings unless it plainly appears that its discretion has been abused.

8. CRIMINAL LAW — Insanity — Inquiry into Feeble-Mindedness of Accused — Section 4909 of the Code of 1919Case at Bar. — In the instant case, accused assigned as error the action of the court in refusing to inquire into the feeble-mindedness of accused under section 4909 of the Code of 1919. No expert testimony was introduced to show that the accused was insane or feeble-minded, and his brother was the only witness to testify on that subject, although seven other witnesses testified in his favor.

Held: That there was no evidence to warrant the conclusion that the court had abused its discretion.

9. CRIMINAL LAW — Insanity — Inquiry into Feeble-Mindedness of Accused — Section 4909 of the Code of 1919Case at Bar. — In the instant case the accused was not prejudiced by the court's refusal to appoint a commission, under section 4909 of the Code of 1919, to inquire into his mental condition, inasmuch as his mental condition at the time of the commission of the offense was put in issue by his plea of not guilty, and gave him an opportunity to prove his mental condition. The verdict of guilty is a finding that the accused was sane at the time the offense was committed.

10. CRIMINAL LAW — Insanity — Sections 1078, 1079 of the Code of 1919. Sections 1078, 1079 of the Code of 1919, in regard to petitions to have persons declared feeble-minded have no application where the alleged feeble-minded person is under indictment and is about to be tried for a crime. In such cases, the court having taken jurisdiction in the case, the party's sanity must be dealt with under section 4909 of the Code of 1919, or by the jury under his plea of not guilty.

11. CONFESSIONS — Statements — Voluntary Confessions — Admissibility. — Confessions made by accused to witnesses who testified that they offered no reward to accused, made no threats against him to induce him to make the statements, and that his statements were absolutely free and voluntary, are admissible.

12. UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA — Criminal Jurisdiction over the Grounds of the University. — The grounds of the University of Virginia are a part of the county of Albemarle and within the criminal jurisdiction of the circuit court of that county.

13. RAPE — Attempt to Commit Rape — Evidence Sufficient to Sustain a Verdict of Guilty. — In the instant case, a prosecution for attempted rape, the cap of accused was found in the room of prosecutrix; the evidence clearly showed that the accused committed a brutal attempt to commit rape upon the prosecutrix. The identity of the accused and his cap were fully established. The accused voluntarily confessed to two persons that he was one of the men who entered the room and made the assault.

Held: That a verdict of guilty could not be said to be contrary to the law and the evidence.

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

The opinion states the case.

Curry & Carter, for the plaintiff in error.

John R. Saunders, Attorney General, Leon M. Bazile and Lewis H. Machen, Assistant Attorneys General, for the Commonwealth.

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

A jury in the Circuit Court of Albemarle county convicted John Wood, the plaintiff in error, of an attempt to rape Katherine T. Rose, and fixed his punishment at death. This is a writ of error to the judgment of the court sentencing him to be electrocuted.

Miss Katherine T. Rose and Miss Payne attended the summer school at the University of Virginia in 1925. On Saturday night, September 5, 1925, they occupied twin beds in a room on the first floor, House "D," Dawson's Row, in the University of Virginia grounds. On account of the heat, the windows in their room were left open. About two o'clock a.m. they were awakened by two colored men who had entered the room and grabbed them, pulled them out of bed down on the floor, choked and fought them, in an effort to rape them. When the ladies began to scream they threatened to cut their throats. When Miss Rose had succeeded in getting on her feet, the man who was fighting Miss Payne said to the man who was struggling with Miss Rose: "Look out, John, she is going to jump out of the window."

Miss Smith, who occupied another room in the same building, heard their screams, came and knocked on the door and the men were frightened and made their escape through the window. They left a gray cap, a pocket knife, a hat and a package of cigarettes in the room. The day before the offense was committed the accused wore a gray cap; and after his arrest he admitted that the cap found in the room was his cap.

The accused voluntarily told a fellow prisoner, William Smith, while in jail, that he and another colored man, George Payne, entered the room through the window and that he took hold of one of the women and George Payne the other; that after the women began to scream and holler he ran and left his cap in the room; that on the next day George Payne offered him $20.00 not to tell what he had done, because he had left his knife in the room.

The first assignment of error is to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Thomas v. Cunningham
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • 8 Enero 1963
    ......No evidence to the contrary was introduced by the Commonwealth. Nevertheless, the trial judge summarily denied the motion and the next day Thomas by counsel pleaded guilty to all six indictments and was given six ...961, 76 S.Ct. 440, 100 L.Ed. 835, reversing 96 U.S.App. D.C. 117, 223 F.2d 582 (1955).         8 Code of Virginia, 1960 § 19.1-228; Wood v. Commonwealth, 146 Va. 296, 135 S.E. 895, 898 (1926); Delp v. Commonwealth, 172 Va. 564, 200 S.E. 594, 596 (1939); Tilton v. Commonwealth, 196 Va. ......
  • Owsley v. Cunningham, Misc. No. 3450.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Virginia)
    • 27 Enero 1961
    ......Smyth, 4 Cir., 273 F.2d 190 F. Supp. 611 838; Livingston v. Commonwealth, 184 Va. 830, 36 S.E.2d 561. The matter of a continuance rested within the sound discretion of the trial court and is not reviewable on habeas ...It has been held to be purely discretionary. Delp v. Commonwealth, 172 Va. 564, 200 S.E. 594; Wood v. Commonwealth, 146 Va. 296, 135 S.E. 895. An additional statutory provision, § 19-203 (now § 19.1-229), provides that if a court in which a ......
  • Hamilton v. State, 26358.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 20 Junio 1934
    ...Upon the merits of appellant's question we find no error. See Commonwealth v. Carnes (1907) 124 Ky. 340, 98 S. W. 1045;Wood v. Com. (1926) 146 Va. 296, 135 S. E. 895. As to appellant's next question, viz., the overruling of his motion to discharge all jurymen because not drawn from the jury......
  • Hampton v. Com., s. 3635-3640
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Virginia
    • 13 Marzo 1950
    ... . Page 288 . 58 S.E.2d 288 . 190 Va. 531 . JOE HENRY HAMPTON . v. . COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. . FRANK HAIRSTON, JR. . v. . COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. . BOOKER T. MILLNER . v. . COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. . HOWARD HAIRSTON . v. . ... Its ruling will not be reversed unless the record shows abuse of discretion. Thompson v. Commonwealth, 131 Va. 847, 109 S.E. 447; Wood v. Commonwealth, 146 Va. 296, 135 S.E. 895; Evans v. Commonwealth, 161 Va. 992, 170 S.E. 756; Maxwell v. Commonwealth, 169 Va. 886, 193 S.E. 507; ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT