Opinion ID: 2353930
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Appellant's final contention is that there was insufficient evidence to support any of his convictions. A thorough examination of the record convinces us this claim is without merit. On all three occasions there was ample evidence to establish the offenses of petit larceny beyond a reasonable doubt. On two of the occasions, he was identified as being present in the offices of the airlines at the times the losses occurred. [20] On the third occasion his fingerprints were found on the cash box, which could be explained only if appellant was the thief. [21] The convictions for unlawful entry must also stand. In Bowman v. United States, D.C.App., 212 A.2d 610 (1965), we sustained a conviction for unlawful entry of a posted non-public area in Union Station, stating that any person who without lawful authority enters upon premises against the will of the lawful occupant after warning to keep off, either orally or by sign, violates § 22-3102. In McGloin v. United States, D.C.App., 232 A.2d 90 (1967), we held that even in a semi-public or public building one does not have a right to enter areas which are obviously not open to the public simply because there is no sign or warning forbidding entry as under such circumstances there is an implied warning not to enter. In the present cases, appellant was found in parts of the airlines' offices which were not open to the public and where he had no right to be, and his explanations for his presence were insufficient to prove his right to be there. As we find no error affecting any substantial right, appellant's convictions are Affirmed.