Title: Via v. Commonwealth
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 131574
State: Virginia
Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court
Date: June 27, 2014

VIRGINIA: 
~the.f~c~o/r~ke/dcdthe.f~C~f?lJ~inthe 
Cit:yo/~on Friday 
the 27th 
dayO/ 
June, 2014. 
Robert King  Via, 
Appellant, 
against  
Record No. 131574  
Court of Appeals No. 1759-12 1  
Commonwealth of Virginia,  
Appel 
Upon an appeal from a 
judgment rendered by the Court 
of Appeals of Virg 
a. 
Upon consideration of the record, pleadings, briefs and 
argument of counsel, 
Court is of the opinion that there is error 
in 
Court of Appeals' judgment and, for the reasons stated below, 
we will reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals. 
On September II, 2010, three masked gunmen entered Frank 
Auche's residence, detained and threatened the 
rsons in t 
residence, and robbed Auche. 
When the police arrived, the gunmen 
fled. 
ood recove 
near the crime scene matched a DNA profile 
for Reginald Jones. 
When Jones was arrested, he identifi 
Robert 
King Via, Jr., Samuel Sanchez and a person known as "Carl" as 
participants in 
crime. 
Via was arrest 
and indicted for crimes 
associated with the invasion of Auche's home. 
Via denied any 
involvement with the crimes but admitted he knew Jones, Sanchez and 
Carl Gentline, the person known as "Carl." 
No forensic evidence 
connected Via to the cr 
Sanchez and Gentline both testif 
at Via's trial. 
Sanchez 
testified that he had entered a plea agreement in whi 
he agreed to 
provi 
truthful testimony as to any co-defendants who might be 
tr 
Gentline mainta 
that, while he drove the getaway car, he 
did so under 
ss because 
was afraid of the other participants, 
who were armed. 
The Commonwealth never charged Gentline with any 
crimes relating to the invasion of Auche's home. 
Both Sanchez and 
Gentline testified that 
a partic 
in the home invas 
a proffe 
the following jury instruction, Jury Instruction 
A, regarding Gentline's testimony: 
Carl Genteline [sic] has testified that 
was an 
accomplice 
the commission of the crimes charged in the 
ctments. 
While you may find your verdict upon his 
uncorroborated testimony, you shou 
consider 
s 
testimony with 
care and you are cautioned as to the 
danger of convict 
the defendant upon the 
uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. 
Nevertheless, 
if you are satisfied 
the evidence of t 
guilt of 
the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, the 
fendant 
may 
convicted upon the uncorroborated evidence of an 
accomplice. 
Although the trial court 
ed a similar instruction rega 
ng 
Sanchez' testimony, it refused Jury Instruction A 
cause the court 
d "not th 
k Mr. Gentline meets the test of an accomplice." 
A 
jury convi 
Via of all crimes charged, except one, and sentenced 
him to 128 years and one day imprisonment. 
Via appealed his convictions to the Court of Appeals. 
As 
relevant here, Via asserted that the trial court erred in refusing 
Jury Instruction A. 
Although the question of Gentline's status as 
an accomplice was inherent 
this assignment of error, t 
Court of 
Appeals did not address that issue directly. 
Rather, the Court of 
Is, in a 
r curiam opinion, affirmed 
trial court's re 
al 
of 
proposed jury inst 
on, stating that 
2  
[e]ven if Gentline was considered an accomplice to the 
crimes, his testimony was corroborated by that of 
Sanchez, who admitted that he, appellant, and Jones were 
the three men who entered Auche's home and threatened 
those inside at gunpoint. 
Via v. Commonwealth, Record No. 1759-12-1, sl 
op. at 3 (May 22, 
2013) (footnote omitted). 
Via appealed from the Court of Appeals' 
judgment, asserting, inter alia, that the Court of Appeals erred in 
affirming the trial court's refusal of Jury Instruction A and in 
ruling that Sanchez' testimony corroborated Gentline's testimony. 
The parties do not dispute that Jury Instruction A correctly 
states the law and should be given if a witness whose testimony is 
at issue is an accomplice and if his or her testimony is 
uncorroborated. 
Jones v. Commonwealth, 111 Va. 862, 868, 69 S.E. 
953, 955 (1911). 
The test for whether a witness is an accomplice is 
"whether he could be indicted 
the same offense." 
Guthrie v. 
Commonwealth, 171 Va. 461, 469, 198 S.E. 481, 484 (1938). 
Whether 
accomplice testimony is corroborated is subject to the long 
established principle that accomplice testimony cannot be 
corroborated by the testimony of another accomplice. 
Jones, 111 Va. 
at 868, 69 S.E. at 955. 
In this case, Gentline qualifi 
as an accomplice because, by 
his own admission, he drove the getaway car and, therefore, could 
have been indicted for the same offense. 
Grant v. 
Commonwealth, 216 Va. 166, 168-69, 217 S.E.2d 806, 808 
(1975) (finding driver of getaway car a principal 
the second 
degree). 
Neither the 
ct that he was not charged 
th any cr 
relating to the home invasion, nor the Commonwealth's claim that he 
lacked criminal intent are relevant to determining whether Gentline 
3  
could have been indicted for the offenses associated with the home 
invasion. 
Gentline's testimony, therefore, required corroboration. 
However, none of the 
dence produced by the Commonwealth 
corroborated Gentline's testimony. 
Furthermore, contrary to the 
Court of Appeals' holding, Sanchez' testimony could not corroborate 
Gentline's testimony because Sanchez was also an accomplice. 
Jones, 
III Va. at 868, 69 S.E. at 955. 
Because Gentline was an accomplice 
and his testimony was not corroborated, the trial court abused its 
discretion in refusing Jury Instruct 
A and the Court of Appeals' 
judgment affirming the t 
al court's refusal to grant Jury 
Instruction A was error. 
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, 
the convictions and sentences vacated, and the case is remanded for 
further prosecution as the Commonwealth may see fit. 
Justice Millette took no part in the consideration of this 
case. 
This order shall be published in the Virginia Reports and shall 
be certified to the Court of Appeals of Virginia and to the Ci 
Court of the City of Hampton. 
A Copy, 
Clerk 
Teste: 
4