COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judge Humphreys, Senior Judges Hodges and Overton 

Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia 

MICHAEL WILLIAM KOULOURIS 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 1953-99-1 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON 

 MAY 23, 2000 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK 

Lydia Calvert Taylor, Judge 

 Allan D. Zaleski (Weisberg & Zaleski, P.C., 

on brief), for appellant. 

 Linwood T. Wells, Jr. (Mark L. Earley, 

Attorney General; Jeffrey S. Shapiro, 

Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for 

appellee. 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code 

§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.

 On appeal from his conviction of statutory burglary, in 

violation of Code § 18.2-91, Michael William Koulouris contends 

that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress an 

eyewitness identification and that the evidence was insufficient 

to support his conviction. Finding no reversible error, we 

affirm. 

On appeal, we review the evidence in 

the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable 

inferences fairly deducible therefrom. The 

judgment of a trial court sitting without a 

jury is entitled to the same weight as a 

jury verdict and will not be set aside 
unless it appears from the evidence that the 

judgment is plainly wrong or without 

evidence to support it. 

Martin v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 438, 443, 358 S.E.2d 415, 418 

(1987). 

 At approximately 3:00 a.m. on June 11, 1998, Richard Strom 

was awakened by a noise in his bedroom. Strom saw a man 

crouching at the foot of his bed. Strom began shouting at the 

man and reached for his handgun, which he kept in the bedside 

table. The burglar then pointed a weapon at Strom. Strom 

chased the man out of his bedroom and into the yard. The man 

grabbed a bicycle, belonging to Strom's wife, and rode away. 

Later, Strom realized that five fishing rods had been taken from 

his shed. 

 On June 20, 1998, Koulouris sold one of Strom's fishing 

rods to an employee of Harrison's Fishing Pier. Koulouris 

returned a few days later to sell additional rods. The pier 

employee notified police of possible stolen property, and the 

police arrived at the pier to arrest Koulouris. 

 The pier employee called Strom to notify him of the arrest. 

Strom arrived at the pier, where he asked police if he could see 

Koulouris. Detective Guy Evans, the investigating officer at 

the pier, refused, stating that showing Koulouris to Strom while 

in the back of the police car would be too suggestive. Strom 

noted that the man sitting in the back of the car, whom he 

- 2 -
glimpsed, appeared to be the burglar, but that he could not be 

sure. 

 Strom testified that Detective Evans then showed him a 

photo array of suspects, with six pictures. Detective Evans 

testified that he did not recall showing Strom the array, which 

he had brought to the pier to show the pier employee. The array 

did not contain a photograph of Koulouris, although Strom did 

pick out one of the pictures as the man who had been in his 

home. Before leaving the pier, Strom did have the opportunity 

to see Koulouris after he exited the police cruiser; Strom told 

police that Koulouris was the man he had seen in his house. 

 Koulouris, after being indicted for grand larceny and 

statutory burglary, filed a motion to suppress all evidence 

regarding Strom's identification of him, as being unduly 

suggestive. Koulouris sought to suppress evidence of Strom's 

identification of Koulouris at the fishing pier, Strom's 

identification of Koulouris at the preliminary hearing, at which 

Koulouris was restrained and wearing prison clothing, as well as 

any further in-court identification that Strom would be asked to 

provide. 

 The trial court found that the basis for Strom's 

identification of Koulouris, "be that mistaken or correct 

identification, [was] a source of what he saw at the scene of 

the crime and not a suggestive view at the scene or at the 

preliminary hearing." The motion to suppress was denied. 

- 3 -
Koulouris pled guilty to the grand larceny charge, which was 

later amended to a conviction of grand larceny by receiving 

stolen property, in violation of Code § 18.2-95. The trial 

court, after hearing evidence, convicted Koulouris of statutory 

burglary, in violation of Code § 18.2-91, and sentenced him to a 

total of twenty-three years imprisonment, with eighteen years 

suspended. 

 Koulouris contends that the trial court erred in denying 

his motion to suppress any evidence regarding Strom's 

identification of Koulouris. He argues Strom's identification 

had been unduly influenced by seeing Koulouris at the pier, in 

the police cruiser, and then again at the preliminary hearing 

while restrained and wearing prison clothing. 

In determining the reliability of a 

witness' identification, we look to the 

factors enunciated in Neil v. Biggers, 409 

U.S. 188 (1972), as significant 

circumstances that may be considered along 

with other evidence. See Charity v. 

Commonwealth, 24 Va. App. 258, 262-63, 482 

S.E.2d 59, 61 (1997). These factors include 

the following: "the opportunity of the 

witness to view the criminal at the time of 

the crime, the witness' degree of attention, 

the accuracy of the witness' prior 

description of the criminal, the level of 

certainty demonstrated by the witness at the 

confrontation, and the length of time 

between the crime and the confrontation." 

Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-200. "The fact 

finder, who has the opportunity to see and 

hear the witnesses, has the sole 

responsibility to determine the weight of 

the evidence, the credibility of witnesses, 

and the inferences to be drawn from proven 

- 4 -
facts." Commonwealth v. Taylor, 256 Va. 

514, 518, 506 S.E.2d 312, 314 (1998). 

Currie v. Commonwealth, 30 Va. App. 58, 73-74, 515 S.E.2d 335, 

343 (1999). 

 Strom had ample opportunity to view Koulouris at the scene 

of the crime. Koulouris was standing at the foot of Strom's bed 

when Strom saw him. Although it was night, the room was 

illuminated by light from the television screen, a security 

light outside the window, and light from the living room, which 

was fifteen feet down the hall. Strom testified that he was 

"eyeball to eyeball" with the burglar, who stood at the bed long 

enough for Strom to shout at him and reach for a weapon. Strom 

then was able to view Koulouris three more times as he left the 

house. As Koulouris was picking up the bicycle, and twice as he 

was riding away, he looked over his shoulder at Strom, who was 

standing in the yard. 

 Strom's testimony at the suppression hearing was full of 

detail, both about the crime itself and about Koulouris' 

description. As the trial court described Strom's testimony 

relating to the night of the crime, "[i]t is clear from his 

testimony that [Strom] was in a state of heightened awareness 

out of fear for the safety of himself and his family and 

exhibited a high level of attention to detail." On the night of 

the burglary, Strom described Koulouris as a young white male, 

approximately sixteen years old, five feet, seven inches tall, 

- 5 -
one hundred and forty to one hundred and fifty pounds, wearing a 

gray sweatshirt, blue jeans, and a dark baseball cap. When 

arrested, Koulouris, a young white male, described himself as 

seventeen years old, five feet, seven inches tall, and weighing 

one hundred and fifty pounds. 

 Strom testified that he was very certain as to his 

identification of Koulouris. At the motion hearing, he 

explained fully any inconsistencies or gaps in his previous 

descriptions of the burglar. The trial court was satisfied with 

Strom's credibility, and we cannot say as a matter of law that 

his testimony was inherently incredible. Further, a lapse of 

twelve days between the crime and Strom's viewing of Koulouris 

at the pier is not, of itself, a long enough period of time to 

sufficiently taint Strom's memory of events, especially 

considering the detailed account of the crime and subsequent 

events. Thus, based upon those factors enunciated in Biggers, 

we find that the identification of Koulouris was not so 

influenced by unduly suggestive procedures as to violate 

Koulouris' right to due process. Accordingly, the motion to 

suppress was rightly denied. 

 Koulouris next contends that the evidence was insufficient 

to support the conviction for statutory burglary, in violation 

of Code § 18.2-91. He argues that the only evidence supporting 

the conviction is Strom's identification and the fact that he 

was in possession of the fishing rods after the burglary. 

- 6 -
 For the reasons stated above, Strom's testimony identifying 

Koulouris as the burglar was not admitted in error. 

 Koulouris admitted to possessing the stolen rods, but 

testified that he had bought the rods from a friend, so that he 

could resell them for profit. The only evidence offered as to 

this transaction was the testimony of Koulouris. "The 

credibility of the witnesses and the weight accorded their 

testimony are matters solely for the fact finder who has the 

opportunity to see and hear that evidence as it is being 

presented." Sandoval v. Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 133, 138, 455 

S.E.2d 730, 732 (1985). 

 While it is true that Koulouris offered an explanation 

regarding his possession of the stolen rods, the truth of such 

explanation is a question of fact, and the trial court is under 

no duty to accept that explanation. See Roberts v. 

Commonwealth, 230 Va. 264, 272, 337 S.E.2d 255, 260 (1985). The 

trial court's rejection of Koulouris' explanation, his 

possession of the rods nine days later, and Strom's 

identification of Koulouris as the man who was in the house the 

night of the crime, all support Koulouris' conviction. 

 The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

 Affirmed.

- 7 -