Opinion ID: 1058104
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Crawford maintains that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of abduction with intent to defile and rape. As we have previously held: When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction, this Court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party at trial and consider[s] all inferences fairly deducible from that evidence. Jones v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 121, 124, 661 S.E.2d 412, 414 (2008). This Court will only reverse the judgment of the trial court if the judgment is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. Wilson v. Commonwealth, 272 Va. 19, 27, 630 S.E.2d 326, 330 (2006) (quoting Code § 8.01-680). If there is evidence to support the convictions, the reviewing court is not permitted to substitute its own judgment, even if its opinion might differ from the conclusions reached by the finder of fact at the trial. Commonwealth v. Jenkins, 255 Va. 516, 520, 499 S.E.2d 263, 265 (1998). Clark v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 636, 640-41, 691 S.E.2d 786, 788 (2010). Additionally, we have held that when an appellate court is reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, [a]ny evidence properly admitted at trial is subject to this review. Commonwealth v. Presley, 256 Va. 465, 467, 507 S.E.2d 72, 72 (1998) (citing Commonwealth v. Jenkins, 255 Va. 516, 521, 499 S.E.2d 263, 265 (1998)) (emphasis added). As such, an appellate court may not consider evidence illegally admitted at trial. To hold otherwise would circumvent on appeal the Constitutional protections provided to a defendant at trial. The Court of Appeals held that counsel for Crawford conceded that, if the affidavit were admissible, the evidence was sufficient to convict him of abduction with intent to defile and rape. Crawford, 55 Va.App. at 481, 686 S.E.2d at 569 (emphasis added). The Court of Appeals found this concession to qualify either as a waiver for purposes of Rule 5A:18 or as an express withdrawal of an appellate challenge to a trial court judgment. Id. Because the affidavit was improperly admitted, however, and because Crawford did not concede that the evidence was sufficient to convict him of abduction with intent to defile and rape without the affidavit, Crawford did not waive this assignment of error. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals erred in failing to address Crawford's sufficiency argument. After reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to [the Commonwealth,] the prevailing party at trial[,] and consider[ing] all inferences fairly deducible from that evidence, Clark, 279 Va. at 640-41, 691 S.E.2d at 788 (quoting Jones v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 121, 124, 661 S.E.2d 412, 414 (2008)), we hold that the evidence, independent of the affidavit, is sufficient to support the jury verdict finding Crawford guilty of abduction with intent to defile and rape for the same reasons that the admission of the affidavit was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt, above.