Opinion ID: 1262796
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Sufficiency of Evidence to Prove Capital Murder

Text: Stewart argues that because the events in the residence on the date of the offenses are unknown and the period of time unaccounted for is so great, the evidence is insufficient to show that the offenses were part of the same act or transaction. We disagree. Two offenses are part of the same act or transaction if they are connected so closely `in time, place and circumstance that a complete account of one charge cannot be related without relating details of the other charge.' Woodfin v. Commonwealth, 236 Va. 89, 92, 372 S.E.2d 377, 379 (1988) (quoting State v. Fitzgerald, 267 Or. 266, 273, 516 P.2d 1280, 1284 (1973)), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1009, 109 S.Ct. 1649, 104 L.Ed.2d 163 (1989). In our opinion, Stewart's inculpatory statements to the police, coupled with the circumstantial evidence in the case, establish beyond question that the murders of Mrs. Stewart and Jonathan are so connected with one another that a complete account of one cannot be related without relating details of the other. Accordingly, we conclude that the two offenses were part of the same act or transaction, within the meaning of Code § 18.2-31(7).