COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Coleman, Elder and Fitzpatrick 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

CHARLES LEE DUNN 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 1231-96-2 JUDGE JOHANNA L. FITZPATRICK 

 APRIL 1, 1997 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY 

John F. Daffron, Jr., Judge 

 (Carl C. Muzi, on brief), for appellant. 

 Appellant submitting on brief. 

 Steven A. Witmer, Assistant Attorney General 

(James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 Charles Lee Dunn (appellant) was convicted in a bench trial 

of being an accessory after the fact to two counts of grand 

larceny. The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the evidence 

was sufficient to convict. Finding no error, we affirm. 

 The evidence at trial established that on two separate 

occasions, September 4, 1995 and September 7, 1995, appellant was 

a passenger in a car when two grand larcenies occurred. 

Appellant contends that he did not know that the others planned 

to break into cars, and did not participate in the thefts of 

stereo equipment and CDs. He admitted that, after the first 

theft on September 4th, he voluntarily went with the others when 

they sold the equipment and he received a small piece of crack 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

cocaine from the proceeds. Regarding the September 7, 1995 

offense, appellant testified that he took no active part in the 

theft and was taken home immediately thereafter. 

 The Commonwealth's evidence included testimony from the 

investigating officer, Detective Ramsey, that appellant told him 

that he knew the purpose of going to the location of the first 

offense was "[t]o take equipment belonging to Mr. Roberts. It 

was known there was equipment in his car." As to the September 

7, 1995 offense, Ramsey testified that appellant stated as 

follows: 

 [T]he three of them went to a location near 

Mr. Jackson's house. Mr. Dunn waited in the 

car, and Mr. Walker and Mr. Kraegers 

approached Mr. Jackson's vehicle. They 

entered the vehicle through an unlocked door 

and took stereo equipment from the vehicle, 

brought it back to the car. [Appellant] 

states that they put the speaker box in the 

trunk, put the amp and a CD player in the 

car, and he says, I think they got some CD's. 

 That equipment was also taken to the city 

and traded for crack cocaine which they all 

used, and that property has not been 

recovered. 

Ramsey stated that appellant admitted to participating and taking 

the property to the city in exchange for crack cocaine. 

 "On appeal, we review the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable 

inferences fairly deducible therefrom." Martin v. Commonwealth, 

4 Va. App. 438, 443, 358 S.E.2d 415, 418 (1987). "'[T]he finding 

of the judge, upon the credibility of the witnesses and the 

weight to be given their evidence, stands on the same footing as 
 3 

the verdict of a jury, and unless that finding is plainly wrong, 

or without evidence to support it, it cannot be disturbed.'" 

Speight v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 83, 88, 354 S.E.2d 95, 98 

(1987) (quoting Lane v. Lane, 184 Va. 603, 611, 35 S.E.2d 744, 

752 (1945)). 

 In order to convict as an accessory after the fact, the 

felony must be completed, appellant must know that the felon is 

guilty and he must receive, relieve, comfort, or assist him. 

Manley v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 642, 644-45, 283 S.E.2d 207, 208 

(1981). Mere presence and consent will not suffice to make one 

an accomplice. It must be shown that the alleged accomplice 

intended to encourage or help the person committing the crime to 

commit it. Pugliese v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 82, 93, 428 

S.E.2d 16, 24-25 (1993). Whether a person aids or abets another 

in the commission of a crime is a question which may be 

determined by circumstantial as well as direct evidence. 

Harrison v. Commonwealth, 210 Va. 168, 171-72, 169 S.E.2d 461, 

464 (1969). 

 While appellant contends that the evidence failed to 

establish that he did anything other than ride in a car with 

friends, the trial court was not required to accept his 

explanation. Appellant admitted to Ramsey that he knew that the 

others intended to steal on both occasions; he smoked crack 

cocaine purchased with the money received from disposing of the 

goods; and he went out with the codefendants three days after the 
 4 

first larceny occurred. See Foster v. Commonwealth, 179 Va. 96, 

100, 18 S.E.2d 314, 316 (1942) (presence during the commission of 

a crime in connection with other circumstances showing an intent 

to aid and abet supports a determination that criminal intent 

existed). Under the facts of this case, the Commonwealth's 

evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 

appellant was an accessory after the fact to the two grand 

larcenies. 

 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the convictions. 

 Affirmed.