Court Opinion

ID: 9566997
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:46:29.218717+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:48:56.863257
License: Public Domain

*317MOON, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent because robbery, in my opinion, is “an offense of larceny” or an “offense deemed to be larceny” •within the meaning of Code § 18.2-104.
Larceny is a lesser-included offense of robbery. A robbery indictment, therefore, necessarily “includes all elements of whatever larceny offense it charges, whether grand or petit____” Motors v. Commonwealth, 14 Va.App. 470, 472, 417 S.E.2d 314, 315 (1992). We concluded in Walker v. Commonwealth, that robbery is distinct from larceny because the larceny is accomplished through the use of violence or threat of harm. 14 Va.App. 203, 206, 415 S.E.2d 446, 448 (1992). Thus, robbery is larceny in it most egregious form. Therefore, I would hold that robbery is “an offense of larceny” or “an offense deemed to be larceny.”
Appellant’s reliance on our holding in Snead v. Commonwealth, 11 Va.App. 643, 400 S.E.2d 806 (1991), is unpersuasive because Snead interprets the predecessor statute to Code § 18.2-104. As amended, the statute no longer contains the limitations upon which the Snead ruling was based and now encompasses any prior larceny offense or any offense deemed or punishable as larceny.
I would also hold that the trial judge did not err in refusing to require the Commonwealth to accept appellant’s stipulation that he previously had been convicted of a larceny offense. The Commonwealth is not required to accept a stipulation. Essex v. Commonwealth, 18 Va.App. 168, 442 S.E.2d 707 (1994). We reached the same conclusion in Glover v. Commonwealth, where the defendant, like appellant here, argued that the evidence of his prior offense was not necessary to obtain a conviction, given his offer to stipulate that he had a prior conviction of the type necessary to satisfy the statute under which he was prosecuted. 3 Va.App. 152, 161-62, 348 S.E.2d 434, 440 (1986), aff'd, 236 Va. 1, 372 S.E.2d 134 (1988). We concluded that the Commonwealth was entitled to prove its case and was under no obligation to forgo putting on its *318own evidence merely because the defendant offered a qualified stipulation. Id.
Accordingly, because I would affirm the judgment of the trial court, I dissent.