COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Humphreys, Ke lsey and Senior Judge Bumgardner Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia

REGINAL N. RODGERS, JR. MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 1195-06-1 J UDGE RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III MARCH 20, 2007 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH Johnny E. Mo rrison, Judge Joseph A. Sadighian, Special As sistant Appellate Defender (Office of the Appellate Defender, on briefs), for appellant. Karri B. Atwood, Assistant Attorn ey General (Robert F. McDonnell, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Reginal N. Rodgers, Jr. appeal s his conviction of grand larcen y of a motor vehicle. He contends that the only evidence of ownership of the vehicle was inadmissible hearsay evidence and thus the evidence was insufficien t. Finding no error, we affirm. Janet Ford owned a white 2001 Ford Explorer, which she lent to her son, Phillip. He parked it overnight on a street, and when he returned the next morning, it was gone. Phillip found the car, but as he was leav ing to get a spare key, he saw th ree men get in the car and drive
away. Later, while Officer B.M. Reid was investigating drug activity in a parking lot, she noticed a 2001 white Ford Explorer with license number JGG 8623. Reid test ified: “The vehicle had been reported the day prior stol en. I ran the tags to confirm that that was, in fact, the vehicle

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.- 2 - that was reported stolen the day prior and it ca me back that it was.” The Commonwealth then asked: “And did you determine who the owner of the vehicle was?” A: Yes, ma’am. Q: Who was that? A: Janet Ford. The defendant objected: “Judge, I would object, hearsay,” and the trial court summarily ruled: “Overruled.” The officer completed her testimony st ating the defendant was in the driver’s seat with the engine running, and she arrested the defendant as soon as additional officers arrived. The defendant maintains the testimony that th e vehicle had been stolen and that Janet Ford was the owner came from information the o fficer received over her computer or from the dispatcher. Thus, he asserts the only eviden ce of ownership was unreliable hearsay testimony. The question to which the defendant objec ted did not call for hearsay. “‘Hearsay evidence is testimony in court, or written evid ence, of a statement made out of court, the statement being offered as an assertion to show the truth of matters asse rted therein, and thus resting for its value upon the credibility of the out-of-court asserter.’” Stevenson v. Commonwealth , 218 Va. 462, 465, 237 S.E.2d 779, 781 (1977) (quoting McCormick on Evidence § 246, at 584 (2d ed. 1972)). The Commonwealth’s attorney asked the ar resting officer for the results of her investigation. The question called for the conc lusion the officer reached as a result of her investigation. It did not call for her to repeat a statement made to her by some other declarant, and her answer did not rest on the credibility of someone other than the witness. It was a statement of the result of the investigation made by the person conducting the investigation. Since the question did not call for objectionable ma tter and its answer did not state an assertion- 3 - of an out-of-court declarant, th e trial court properly overruled the objection that the defendant made. The defendant also contends the evidence was insufficient to prove he stole Janet Ford’s 2001 Ford Explorer. The day after Janet Ford’s vehicle was stolen, the defendant was in the driver’s seat with the moto r running. “[O]nce the crime is established, the unexplained possession of recently stolen goods permits an infe rence of larceny by the possessor.” Bright v. Commonwealth , 4 Va. App. 248, 251, 356 S.E.2d 443, 444 (1987). For the larceny inference to arise, the Commonwealth must prove that th e accused was in exclusive possession of the recently stolen property. Best v. Commonwealth , 222 Va. 387, 389, 282 S.E.2d 16, 17 (1981). “This inference from the recent, unexplained, possession of stolen property may, by itself, support a conviction of larceny.” Montague v. Commonwealth , 40 Va. App. 430, 437, 579 S.E.2d 667, 670 (2003). The defendant’s unexplained recent possession of the stolen vehicle was sufficient to prove him guilty of the grand larceny of it. Accordingly, we affirm. Affirmed.