Opinion ID: 1059011
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Sufficiency of the Evidence Attempted Robbery

Text: Winston argues assignments of error 34, 36, 53, and 54 together. Those assignments of error are as follows: 34 The trial court erred by not striking the evidence at the close of the prosecution's case. . . . . . 36 The trial court erred in ruling the evidence was sufficient to support jury instructions regarding attempted robbery in the course of capital murder in the absence of evidence establishing the corpus delicti of the crime. . . . . . 53 The trial court erred by not setting aside the jury verdict. . . . . . 54 The trial court erred by not setting aside the jury verdict when the prosecution failed to present evidence establishing the corpus delicti of attempted robbery. Winston argues that the evidence was not sufficient to prove that Winston was the triggerman or to prove that Winston intended to rob Anthony and Rhonda. Having already addressed the sufficiency of the evidence proving that Winston was the triggerman, we focus our discussion of these assignments of error on the sufficiency of the evidence for Winston's conviction of attempted robbery and capital murder based upon a predicate of attempted robbery. Winston argues that the evidence of attempted robbery is insufficient for four reasons: 1) the testimony of Rorls concerning Winston's intent is unclear; 2) Rorls' testimony contradicts the theory that Winston intended to rob Rhonda; 3) Rorls' testimony is not credible; and 4) the trial court found that the same evidence was insufficient to support a robbery charge. In evaluating Winston's argument, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below, the Commonwealth, and grant it the benefit of all fairly deducible inferences. Elliott, 267 Va. at 400, 593 S.E.2d at 273; Lenz v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 451, 455, 544 S.E.2d 299, 301, cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1003, 122 S.Ct. 481, 151 L.Ed.2d 395 (2001). Winston's claim that Rorls' testimony is unclear is based on a single excerpt from his direct examination. Winston argues that the following response from Rorls is unclear because Rorls uses the word he imprecisely: A. He said that the dude that was with him, that helped him, you know, rob, took the dude downstairs or something, and he said, the dude shot him first. And when the dude come running upstairs, he said he shot the dude in the upper body. And then he said  he was like he don't want to leave no witnesses. So the girl was screaming or something, and he said he shot her, too. Winston ignores the fact that the Commonwealth's Attorney recognized at the time that Rorls' response was confusing and followed that response with a series of questions that clarified that Winston's co-defendant shot Anthony first, in the stomach, that Winston then shot Anthony in the face or somewhere in the upper body, and that Winston then shot Rhonda. Later, Rorls' testimony reveals why Winston went to the Robinson home: Q. Did you  so he tells you this. What did you say? What did you say to him? A. I asked  I said  I said  asked him why he did that. That's stupid, you know. He said he did that for no reason. I mean, you know, it don't make no sense to shoot them people. Q. What did he say? A. He was like he wanted to get paid. He said somebody robbed him. Q. I wasn't quite sure what you said. He said what, now? A. Somebody robbed him a couple days before that, so he needed to make his money back up, he didn't get paid. In this passage, he refers exclusively to Winston. There is no mistaking the clear implication of this portion of Rorls' testimony: Winston went to the Robinson home to rob the occupants. Winston also appears to attach significance to the fact that Rorls did not state that Winston intended to rob Rhonda specifically. Robbery is `the taking, with intent to steal, of the personal property of another, from his person or in his presence, against his will, by violence or intimidation.' Pritchard v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 559, 562, 303 S.E.2d 911, 912 (1983) (quoting Mason v. Commonwealth, 200 Va. 253, 254, 105 S.E.2d 149, 150 (1958)). Rorls' testimony indicates that Winston went to the Robinson home in order to make his money back up. His intent was larcenous. The evidence proves that Winston engaged in acts of violence to achieve this end. Further, the evidence proves that Winston admitted robbing both Rhonda and Anthony. Rorls testified that Winston told him that he killed two people and robbed them. Finally, the evidence proves that Winston admitted to Rorls that he took cash and cocaine from the Robinsons. Winston argues that Rorls' recollection that Winston told him that Winston did not want to leave no witnesses, so he said he turned around and he shot that bitch, actually contradicts the notion that Winston was attempting to rob Rhonda. Winston argues that the proof offered only shows he intended to prevent Rhonda from becoming a witness. While Winston's intent in actually killing Rhonda may have been to silence her, that does not necessarily negate his intent to rob her as well. As noted above, Winston admitted robbing both Rhonda and Anthony. Third, Winston assails Rorls' testimony as unbelievable. He relies heavily on discrepancies between Rorls' testimony and Niesha's testimony to argue that there is no evidence to prove intent to rob Anthony Robinson. The same evidence of Winston's intent to rob Rhonda applies to the attempt to rob Anthony as well. It need not be repeated. Winston claims that a fair reading of [Niesha's] testimony points to a struggle taking place and Mr. Robinson's subsequent shooting being designed to avoid witnesses. The evidence demonstrates that Niesha was never downstairs during the incident. As a result, Niesha could not testify to anything more than the fact that she heard gunshots downstairs and that she heard Anthony try to come upstairs before he was shot again. None of this testimony addresses Winston's intent concerning the robbery or attempted robbery of Anthony. Winston once again points to Niesha's confusion concerning which of the men was the shooter. Further, he argues that all of Rorls' testimony should have been disregarded by the jury. We note the oft-recited principle that [t]he trier of fact is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses, unless, as a matter of law, the testimony is inherently incredible. Walker v. Commonwealth, 258 Va. 54, 70-71, 515 S.E.2d 565, 575 (1999) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1125, 120 S.Ct. 955, 145 L.Ed.2d 829 (2000); see also City of Portsmouth v. Houseman, 109 Va. 554, 558, 65 S.E. 11, 13 (1909). In this case, Rorls' testimony was not inherently incredible. Large portions of Rorls' testimony are corroborated by other evidence and other witnesses. For example, Rorls testified that Winston showed him the handgun he had used in the crime and that the gun appeared to be a Glock or a 9-millimeter automatic. Winston later gave a 9-millimeter handgun to Robin Wilson. This handgun bore Winston's DNA. Rorls was able to relate a sequence of events for the murders that corresponded to the locations of the victims' bodies in the house. His testimony that Kevin Brown shot Anthony in the stomach and that Winston shot Anthony in the head and upper torso corresponds with forensic evidence concerning bullets retrieved in and around Anthony's body. In fact, other than Niesha's confusion as to clothing of the man who was the shooter, Niesha's testimony and Rorls' testimony largely reinforce each other. In light of these factors, the jury was not unreasonable in determining that Rorls' testimony was credible and assigning considerable weight to it. Winston argues that the trial court must have found one of two things as a matter of law in order to strike the robbery charge originally filed against Winston. He claims that [e]ither, [the trial court] found Mr. Rorls was so unbelievable that his testimony could not support a conviction for robbery or it found the prosecution failed to introduce sufficient evidence to corroborate his account. At trial, Winston moved to strike the robbery charges at the close of all the evidence. He raised a number of other motions to strike charges and evidence at the same time. These motions were argued simultaneously. The argument on the motion to strike the robbery charges centered upon whether the Commonwealth had presented sufficient evidence to prove that Winston had actually taken any property from Anthony and Rhonda, and, if so, exactly how much had been taken. After a recess, during which the trial court considered the arguments, it made a ruling that there was insufficient evidence to corroborate the robbery charge but would allow jury deliberations to go forward on the attempted robbery charge. Whether the trial court was correct that there was insufficient evidence to corroborate the robbery charge is not an issue in this case; however, submitting the case to the jury on charges of attempted robbery was not error considering the evidence presented. Finally, Winston argues that there was insufficient corroboration of the intent to rob to support convictions for attempted robbery and the capital murder counts based upon attempted robbery. We disagree. Winston's statements to Rorls were presented to the jury. This evidence amounts to a confession to actual robbery, capital murder, and the related firearm charges. Only slight corroboration to prove the corpus delicti is required. Clozza v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 124, 133, 321 S.E.2d 273, 279 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1230, 105 S.Ct. 1233, 84 L.Ed.2d 370 (1985). As we recently stated in Powell v. Commonwealth, 267 Va. 107, 590 S.E.2d 537 (2004), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 86, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2004): Although the Commonwealth may not establish an essential element of a crime by the uncorroborated confession of the accused alone, `only slight corroborative evidence' is necessary to show the veracity of the confession. Williams v. Commonwealth, 234 Va. 168, 175, 360 S.E.2d 361, 366 (1987) (quoting Clozza v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 124, 133, 321 S.E.2d 273, 279 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1230, 105 S.Ct. 1233, 84 L.Ed.2d 370 (1985)), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1020, 108 S.Ct. 733, 98 L.Ed.2d 681 (1988). What is more, if [t]his corroborating evidence is consistent with a reasonable inference that the accused committed the crime to which he has confessed, the Commonwealth need not establish through direct evidence those elements of the crime that are proven by the confession. See Jackson v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. 625, 646, 499 S.E.2d 538, 551 (1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1067, 119 S.Ct. 796, 142 L.Ed.2d 658 (1999). Id. at 145, 590 S.E.2d at 560. Rorls actually saw what Winston stated was one-half of the fruits of the robbery, namely $1000 and an ounce of crack cocaine. The evidence shows that $2000 and two rocks of crack cocaine were taken, however, they were divided evenly between Winston and his cohort. The circumstances of the crime scene, the DNA evidence relating to the handgun, the attempt to hide the handgun with a friend, and the testimony of Niesha all serve to corroborate Winston's confession and his intent to rob both Anthony and Rhonda.