Court Opinion

ID: 9566104
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:34:02.577439+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:10.464862
License: Public Domain

ELDER, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in part in the majority’s opinion ruling regarding the credit card thefts. I dissent from the ruling regarding appellant’s conviction for breaking and entering with the intent to commit larceny.
I.
Credit and ATM Cards
I agree that credible evidence supports the trial court’s decision that appellant committed credit card theft in violation *139of Code § 18.2-192. I also agree with the majority’s analysis of Cheatham v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. 286, 288, 208 S.E.2d 760, 762 (1974), and Wilder v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 145, 225 S.E.2d 411 (1976). However, I write separately on this issue because I believe that Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 210 Va. 201, 169 S.E.2d 577 (1969), cert. denied 397 U.S. 998, 90 S.Ct. 1142, 25 L.Ed.2d 408 (1970), controls the disposition of this case. In Sullivan, the defendant was charged with burglary after he was found in possession of a credit card that was stolen almost three months earlier. In distinguishing Cheatham from Sullivan, the Supreme Court held as follows:
[I]n Sullivan ... the evidence warranted an inference that the breaking and entering and theft were committed at the same time by the same person and as a part of the same transaction, so that the exclusive possession of the recently stolen card ... could properly give rise to the inference that the possessor [the defendant] had committed the burglary. [The Supreme Court] also held that recency of possession is an issue to be determined by the trier of fact.
Cheatham v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. at 288, 208 S.E.2d at 762.
The majority correctly states that Cheatham and Wilder are inapposite. This case differs from Cheatham, where the defendant was “charged with the statutory offense of credit card theft for withholding” the credit card from the true owner after it came into his possession. He was not charged with “taking” the credit card. Id. The mere “possession” of the stolen credit card was held insufficient to support a finding of credit card theft. Furthermore, in Wilder, the only charge against the accused was that he had in his “possession” two or more cards belonging to the true owner. The Supreme Court held that a charge of mere possession of a stolen credit card is not sufficient to state the offense of credit card “theft.” Wilder, 217 Va. at 147, 225 S.E.2d at 413. Thus, in Cheatham and Wilder, the charge and proof were limited to mere possession, without a charge of taking.
In this case, appellant was not charged with mere “possession” or “withholding;” instead, he was charged with the *140“taking” and “possession” of the credit cards, as in Sullivan. Furthermore, credible evidence supported the trial court’s determination that because the credit cards were found on appellant’s person eleven days after their theft, the taking element was satisfied (compared to the three month interval in Sullivan, which was also sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction). Under the facts contained in this record, and following Sullivan, the trial court could reasonably have rejected appellant’s explanation and reasonably infer that appellant was the thief who unlawfully took the credit cards in violation of Code § 18.2-192. See Hope v. Commonwealth, 10 Va.App. 381, 385, 392 S.E.2d 830, 833 (1990) (en banc).
II.
Breaking and Entering/Intent to Steal
I respectfully disagree with the majority and would hold that the evidence was insufficient to convict appellant of breaking and entering with the intent to commit larceny in violation of Code § 18.2-91. While appellant conceded that he unlawfully entered Ing’s farmhouse, the evidence is insufficient to prove appellant’s specific intent to commit larceny.
The majority correctly cites Ridley v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 834, 252 S.E.2d 313 (1979), for the proposition that intent can be inferred from the facts and circumstances in a particular case. In Ridley, the Supreme Court affirmed the defendant’s conviction for breaking and entering the storehouse of a furniture company with intent to commit larceny. The Court stated:
[A]n ordinary mind will take cognizance of the fact that people do not break and enter a closed store containing personal property in the nighttime with innocent intent. Where there is no explanation or evidence of a different intent, as here, the intelligent mind will infer that entry was with the intent to steal property in the store.
Ridley, 219 Va. at 837, 252 S.E.2d at 315.
The majority also cites Hargrave v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 436, 437, 201 S.E.2d 597, 598 (1974), for the proposition that *141the state of mind of an accused may be shown by his acts and conduct. However, the majority ignores the ample evidence in the record showing that appellant intended to use Ing’s farmhouse strictly as a means of shelter. The Commonwealth did not challenge this assertion, and nothing in the record indicates an intent to commit larceny at the time of the breaking and entering. Evidence showed that appellant had been on the premises for at least eight days before his arrest, during which time he fashioned a make-shift bed from a roll of insulation. Evidence was also presented that appellant built at least one fire and that food had been prepared using pieces of furniture to substitute for a grill.
No evidence proved that any personal property was removed from the farmhouse and no evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant took oil from Ing’s lawn mower. The majority states that “[w]hen discovered on the premises, [appellant] possessed two pistols and the stolen items from the van, which permitted the inference that [appellant] was the thief.” I fail to see how this statement has any bearing on the issue of whether appellant intended to commit larceny of personal property in Ing’s farmhouse under the facts of this case. Assuming appellant stole the items from the van, generally evidence of other crimes is not considered to prove guilt of the crime for which the defendant is on trial. Kirkpatrick v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 269, 272, 176 S.E.2d 802, 805 (1970).
The surrounding facts and circumstances in this case provide credible evidence to support appellant’s assertion that he was using Ing’s farmhouse as a shelter. See Tompkins v. Commonwealth, 212 Va. 460, 461, 184 S.E.2d 767, 768 (1971). “Whenever the evidence leaves indifferent which of several hypotheses is true, or merely establishes only some finite probability in favor of one hypothesis, such evidence does not amount to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Maynard v. Commonwealth, 10 Va.App. 15, 18, 389 S.E.2d 910, 912, rev’d on reh’g en banc on other grounds, 11 Va.App. 437, 399 S.E.2d 635 (1990).
*142Based on the foregoing reasons, I would affirm appellant’s conviction for credit card theft but would reverse his conviction for breaking and entering with the intent to commit larceny.