COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Elder, Annunziata and Senior Judge Hodges 

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia 

GARY DEAN STEVENS 

v. Record No. 2300-94-1 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

 JUDGE ROSEMARIE ANNUNZIATA 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DECEMBER 19, 1995 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF HAMPTON 

John D. Gray, Judge 

 Stephen K. Smith for appellant. 

 

 Margaret Ann B. Walker, Assistant Attorney 

General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney 

General, on brief), for appellee. 

 Following a bench trial on October 20, 1993, the appellant, 

Gary Dean Stevens ("Stevens"), was convicted of knowingly 

possessing a motor vehicle from which the vehicle identification 

number ("VIN") had been removed. On appeal, Stevens argues that 

the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Finding 

no error, we affirm. 

 On April 8, 1993, Hampton Police Officer Susan Canny stopped 

Stevens for driving with an expired City of Poquoson sticker. 

Stevens indicated to Canny that he did not have his license 

(which had been suspended), that he had no registration, and that 

he had obtained the car's license tags from an abandoned car. 

Canny arrested Stevens for driving on a suspended license and 

improperly using state license tags. 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

 Canny testified that, upon inspecting the car, she noticed a 

hole in the dash where the VIN tag belonged. After reading 

Stevens Miranda rights, Canny asked him about the VIN. Stevens 

admitted that he had removed the VIN because it was loose, 

stating that he had the VIN tag somewhere in the car or at his 

home. After searching the car, Canny found only a paper VIN 

taped to the door. Canny ran a check on the paper VIN and found 

that the car was registered to Gerald Allen Thomas of Poquoson. 

Stevens testified that he had purchased the car from Gerald 

Thomas who was his sister's fiance. Thomas was not present at 

trial. 

 At trial, Stevens denied telling Canny that he had removed 

the VIN and claimed that the VIN was attached to the dash at the 

time of his arrest. Stevens' sister testified that she had 

noticed the VIN attached to the car the next day upon retrieving 

the car from impoundment. 

 When considering the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal 

in a criminal case, this Court views the evidence in a light most 

favorable to the Commonwealth. Higginbotham v. Commonwealth, 216 

Va. 349, 352, 218 S.E.2d 534, 537 (1975). On review, this Court 

does not substitute its own judgment for that of the trier of 

fact. Cable v. Commonwealth, 243 Va. 236, 239, 415 S.E.2d 218, 

220 (1992). Instead, the trial court's judgment will not be set 

aside unless it appears that the judgment is plainly wrong or 

without supporting evidence. Code § 8.01-680; Josephs v. 
- 3 - 

Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 87, 99, 390 S.E.2d 491, 497 (1990) (en 

banc) (quoting Martin v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 438, 443, 358 

S.E.2d 415, 418 (1987)). 

 Code § 46.2-1075 makes it unlawful for any person to 

knowingly possess a motor vehicle, "the motor number, serial 

number, or identification number of which has been removed, 

changed, or altered." Code § 46.2-1072 requires that the VIN be 

"stamped, cut, embossed, or attached in such a manner that it 

cannot be changed, altered, or removed without plainly showing 

evidence which would be readily detectable . . . . The number 

shall be die stamped, cut, or embossed into or attached to a 

permanent part of the vehicle which is easily accessible for 

verification." The Court must construe these two closely 

interrelated sections together. See Virginia Real Estate Board 

v. Clay, 9 Va. App. 152, 157, 384 S.E.2d 622, 625 (1989); ABC 

Trucking, Inc. v. Griffin, 5 Va. App. 542, 547-48, 365 S.E.2d 

334, 337-38 (1988). Doing so, Stevens' contention, that the 

paper VIN attached to the car's door precludes his conviction, 

must fail. The piece of paper taped to the door simply does not 

comply with the statutory requirement. 

 Stevens' admission to Canny that he had removed the VIN from 

the dashboard is evidence that he had the requisite knowledge. 

Although Stevens subsequently denied admitting to Canny that he 

had removed the VIN from the vehicle, the trier of fact was free 

to reject his testimony. See Rollston v. Commonwealth 11 Va. 
- 4 - 

App. 535, 547, 399 S.E.2d 823, 830 (1991) (trier of fact "is not 

required to accept in toto, an accused's statement, but may rely 

upon it in whole, in part, or reject it completely"). Here, 

Canny's testimony is corroborated by the fact that Canny could 

not find the metal plate containing the VIN anywhere in the 

vehicle or on the motor block. 

 Accordingly, the conviction is affirmed. 

Affirmed.