COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Elder and Annunziata 

Argued at Salem, Virginia 

GARLAND SCOTT HODGE 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 0791-95-3 JUDGE LARRY G. ELDER 

 APRIL 23, 1996 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CARROLL COUNTY 

Duane E. Mink, Judge 

 Jonathon M. Venzie for appellant. 

 Linwood T. Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney 

General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney 

General, on brief), for appellee. 

 Garland Scott Hodge (appellant) was convicted of robbery and 

use of a firearm in the commission of a felony in violation of 

Code § 18.2-53.1. Appellant contends that the jury's verdict, 

which found him guilty of the "use of a firearm," but did not 

mention its use in the commission of a felony, is void. We 

disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

 On September 15, 1992, an employee of Griffin's Grocery 

Store in Carroll County, Virginia, was robbed by an armed, masked 

man, later identified at trial as appellant. Appellant was tried 

before a jury on May 11, 1993, in the Circuit Court of Carroll 

County. At trial, the Commonwealth's Attorney explained to the 

jury that the evidence would prove appellant was "guilty of 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
 -2- 

robbery and use of a firearm in commission of that robbery." The 

Commonwealth presented evidence that appellant used a firearm 

during the robbery. During closing argument, the Commonwealth's 

Attorney referred to the robbery having taken place "by the 

threat of presenting a firearm," and referred to appellant's use 

of a pistol to effectuate the robbery. 

 At the conclusion of all of the evidence, the trial court 

explained the two verdict forms as being for robbery and "the use 

of a firearm." On the latter charge, the trial court instructed 

the jury as follows: 

 [T]he Defendant is charged with the crime of 

using a firearm, to wit, a pistol, while 

committing the crime of robbery. The 

Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable 

doubt each of the following elements of the 

crime--(1) that the Defendant used a firearm, 

to wit, a pistol, and (2) that the use was 

while committing or attempting to commit 

robbery. If you find from the evidence that 

the Commonwealth has proved beyond a 

reasonable doubt each of the above elements 

of the offense as charged, then you shall 

find the Defendant guilty and fix his 

punishment at a term of imprisonment for two 

years. If you find that the Commonwealth has 

failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt 

either element of the offense, then you shall 

find the Defendant not guilty. 

 The jury, in conformity with the verdict forms the trial 

court furnished, stated, "[w]e, the Jury, find the Defendant 

guilty of robbery and fix his punishment at ten years. Signed 

. . . Foreman. Also, we, the Jury, find the Defendant guilty of 

use of a firearm and fix his punishment at two years. Signed 
 -3- 

. . . Foreman." (Emphasis added). The trial court entered 

judgment on the verdicts, from which appellant now appeals. 

 As the Supreme Court of Virginia has stated: 

 In determining the validity of the 

jury's verdict, it is necessary to discern 

the true intent of the jury. A verdict must 

demonstrate what a jury found or intended to 

find, and it is always to be read in 

connection with the indictment. . . . We 

disregard technical irregularities in a 

verdict where the jury's finding is otherwise 

clear. In Williams v. Commonwealth, 153 Va. 

987, 994, 151 S.E. 151, 153 (1930), we stated 

that the court would "go far in the disregard 

of defects in verdicts which have been 

accepted by the trial courts, but from which, 

notwithstanding such defects, the real 

finding of the jury may be determined, though 

it may not be accurately couched in the 

technical language of the law." See Jackson 

v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 490, 237 S.E.2d 791 

(1977). 

Spear v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 450, 454, 270 S.E.2d 737, 740 

(1980). The Supreme Court has also said that a reviewing court 

"will not presume that a jury has disregarded the instructions of 

the court[.]" Jackson, 218 Va. at 493, 237 S.E.2d at 793. 

Furthermore, while a verdict form furnished to a jury may not be 

drafted with desirable specificity and precision, this does not 

render a jury verdict fatally defective. Id. at 493-94, 237 

S.E.2d at 793. 

 In this case, the Commonwealth indicted appellant under Code 

§ 18.2-53.1, for use of a firearm while committing robbery. The 

Commonwealth tried appellant upon this charge and a charge of 

robbery. The Commonwealth presented credible evidence proving 
 -4- 

that appellant used a firearm while committing robbery. The 

Commonwealth's Attorney set forth the elements necessary to prove 

the firearm charge in its opening statement and closing argument. 

 The trial court then instructed the jury on the elements 

necessary to convict appellant of use of a firearm in the 

commission of a robbery. In this case, "there is no question as 

to the sufficiency of the evidence to convict, the correctness of 

the instructions given by the court, the offense which the jury 

found was committed[,] and the offense which the jury convicted 

the defendant of committing." Bacci v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 

236, 238, 191 S.E.2d 182, 183 (1972)(Harrison, J., dissenting). 

 Based on the foregoing, we affirm appellant's conviction. 

Affirmed.