COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick,* Judge Elder and 

 Senior Judge Duff 

Argued at Alexandria, Virginia 

RONALD WALTER WACHTLER 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION** BY 

v. Record No. 2883-96-4 CHIEF JUDGE JOHANNA L. FITZPATRICK 

 NOVEMBER 25, 1997 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY 

Herman A. Whisenant, Jr., Judge 

 William J. Baker for appellant. 

 Steven A. Witmer, Assistant Attorney General 

(Richard Cullen, Attorney General, on brief), 

for appellee. 

 Ronald Walter Wachtler (appellant) was convicted by a jury 

of grand larceny and burglary in violation of Code §§ 18.2-95 and 

18.2-91 respectively. The sole issue raised on appeal is whether 

the trial court erred in allowing a witness to comment that 

appellant had a drug problem. Assuming without deciding that the 

trial court erred, we find it to be harmless and affirm the 

convictions. 

 On December 22, 1995, the Nokesville home of Susan Daniel 

was burglarized and property valued at between $9,000 and $10,000 

was stolen. Included among the items taken were family silver, 

jewelry, television sets, and a CD player. The day after the 

 

 *On November 19, 1997, Judge Fitzpatrick succeeded Judge 

Moon as chief judge. 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

burglary, appellant pawned two of Daniel's silver candlesticks in 

Fredericksburg at Fredericksburg Pawn, Inc. At trial, Mary Ann 

Gurney, appellant's former girlfriend, testified that she 

discovered a bag on her front porch which contained silver, 

jewelry, documents belonging to Mr. and Mrs. Daniel, and a pawn 

ticket identified as being issued to appellant by William Flynn 

of Fredericksburg Pawn, Inc. Ms. Gurney also stated that during 

her relationship with appellant, he had a drug problem. Lastly, 

William Fox testified that appellant had asked him if he "wanted 

to do some burglaries." 

 The Commonwealth argues that appellant's drug use is 

admissible to show a motive for larceny. Assuming without 

deciding that the admission of this statement was error, based 

upon a review of this record, we conclude beyond a reasonable 

doubt that the error was harmless. "A defendant is entitled to a 

fair trial but not a perfect one." Lutwak v. United States, 344 

U.S. 604, 619 (1953). Error in cases of improperly admitted 

evidence may be shown to be harmless if the record contains 

"overwhelming" evidence of guilt. Clagett v. Commonwealth, 252 

Va. 79, 91, 472 S.E.2d 263, 270 (1996). The appellate court must 

determine on the basis of its own reading of the record the 

probable impact of the evidence on the minds of the jury and 

whether the admission was sufficiently prejudicial to require 

reversal. Arnold v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 275, 282, 356 

S.E.2d 847, 851 (1987). 
 3 

 The undisputed facts established that appellant was in 

possession of the recently stolen property, pawned several items 

the day after the theft, left others at the home of his former 

girlfriend, and asked William Fox if he would help appellant 

commit a burglary. Additionally, based upon appellant's 

extensive prior criminal history, including eight prior 

burglary- or larceny-type offenses, any mention of a possible 

drug habit could not be said to have affected the sentence. 

Based upon the overwhelming evidence of appellant's guilt, we 

hold that the admission of Ms. Gurney's statement, if error, was 

harmless. Thus, we affirm the convictions. 

 Affirmed.