Opinion ID: 1242733
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Shotgun Issues

Text: Prior to trial, Cheng moved to sever the indictment for possession of a sawed-off shotgun from the other indictments. The trial court denied the motion. At trial, the court admitted the shotgun into evidence over Cheng's objection. Cheng assigns error to both rulings. A court may direct that an accused be tried at one time for all offenses pending against him if (1) justice does not require separate trials, Rule 3A:10(b), and (2) the offenses are based on the same act or transaction, or on two or more acts or transactions that are connected or constitute parts of a common scheme or plan, Rule 3A:6(b). Whether different offenses should be tried separately is a matter that rests within the sound discretion of a trial court. Fincher v. Commonwealth, 212 Va. 552, 553, 186 S.E.2d 75, 76, cert. denied, 409 U.S. 913, 93 S.Ct. 243, 34 L.Ed.2d 174 (1972); Bryant v. Commonwealth, 189 Va. 310, 315, 53 S.E.2d 54, 56 (1949). Thus, a trial court's ruling on the matter will not be reversed absent a showing that the court abused its discretion. Fincher, 212 Va. at 553, 186 S.E.2d at 76. Generally, evidence of other offenses is inadmissible if it is offered merely to show that an accused was likely to commit the crime for which he is being tried. There are, however, well-established exceptions to the general rule. Evidence of other offenses is admitted if it shows the conduct and feeling of the accused toward his victim, if it establishes their prior relations, or if it tends to prove any relevant element of the offense charged. Such evidence is permissible in cases where the motive, intent or knowledge of the accused is involved, or where the evidence is connected with or leads up to the offense for which the accused is on trial. Kirkpatrick v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 269, 272, 176 S.E.2d 802, 805 (1970). See also Spencer v. Commonwealth, ___ Va. ___, 393 S.E.2d 609 (1990), this day decided. In the present case, Cheng, Sam, and Kim planned to commit a robbery. In furtherance of the plan, Cheng told Sam and Kim to bring the shotgun and the jeep. Consequently, on the evening of September 4, a bag containing the shotgun was placed in Cheng's jeep. The abduction, robbery, and murder of Liu occurred between 11:25 p.m., September 4, and 7:30 a.m., September 5. On September 7, the shotgun was found in Cheng's locked jeep. Clearly, the shotgun possession offense and the other offenses were connected and constituted parts of a common scheme or plan. In addition, on this record, we conclude that no undue prejudice could have resulted from trying the offenses together in a single trial. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to sever the shotgun possession offense. It is equally clear that the shotgun was admissible evidence in the trial of the other offenses. It showed Cheng's motive, intent, and knowledge. Furthermore, this evidence was relevant to establish malice and premeditation, it was connected with and led up to the other offenses, and it was relevant as part of Cheng's general criminal scheme.