Wright v. Commonwealth , 224 Va. 502 ( 1982 )

COMPTON, J.,

dissenting.

In my opinion, the evidence is insufficient to sustain these convictions. Even viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the prosecutor’s evidence only creates a suspicion that there was an agreement between Wright and Lightfoot. Moreover, only by indulging in pure speculation can one conclude that the intent of any such agreement was to commit a robbery, or even to commit a felony. In Virginia, a person cannot conspire to commit a misdemeanor. Code § 18.2-22. Finally, the evidence is insufficient to establish the target of the alleged robbery. This is demonstrated by the trial court’s statement:

“They were out there for the purpose of robbing something. It might not have been McDonald’s. It could have been Pizza Hut across [Route] 60 ... ”

Consequently, I would reverse the convictions and dismiss the indictments.