Opinion ID: 1308443
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Admissibility of Items of Jewelry.

Text: Bunch contends that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the Rolex watch recovered from the pawn shop, the diamond and setting seized in Japan, and the string of pearls seized in Indiana. Bunch argues that these items were not sufficiently identified as the property of the victim to be admissible into evidence. We disagree with Bunch. Both in his confession and from the witness stand, Bunch admitted that he took Thomas's watch, diamond ring, and string of pearls. Thomas's former husband identified the items proffered at trial and said that they were identical with those owned by Thomas; he particularly noted the unusual nature of the clasp on the string of pearls. Furthermore, the evidence showed that shortly after Thomas's death and the theft of her watch, diamond ring, and string of pearls, Bunch was in possession of goods of the type stolen. Hence, strict proof of identity of the goods [was] not required. Henderson v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. 811, 813, 213 S.E.2d 782, 783 (1975).