Ronald Walter Wachtler v. Commonwealth of Virginia ( 1997 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, * Judge Elder and
Senior Judge Duff
Argued at Alexandria, Virginia
RONALD WALTER WACHTLER
MEMORANDUM OPINION** BY
v. Record No. 2883-96-4 CHIEF JUDGE JOHANNA L. FITZPATRICK
NOVEMBER 25, 1997
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY
Herman A. Whisenant, Jr., Judge
William J. Baker for appellant.
Steven A. Witmer, Assistant Attorney General
(Richard Cullen, Attorney General, on brief),
for appellee.
Ronald Walter Wachtler (appellant) was convicted by a jury
of grand larceny and burglary in violation of Code §§ 18.2-95 and
18.2-91 respectively. The sole issue raised on appeal is whether
the trial court erred in allowing a witness to comment that
appellant had a drug problem. Assuming without deciding that the
trial court erred, we find it to be harmless and affirm the
convictions.
On December 22, 1995, the Nokesville home of Susan Daniel
was burglarized and property valued at between $9,000 and $10,000
was stolen. Included among the items taken were family silver,
jewelry, television sets, and a CD player. The day after the
*
On November 19, 1997, Judge Fitzpatrick succeeded Judge
Moon as chief judge.
**
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
burglary, appellant pawned two of Daniel's silver candlesticks in
Fredericksburg at Fredericksburg Pawn, Inc. At trial, Mary Ann
Gurney, appellant's former girlfriend, testified that she
discovered a bag on her front porch which contained silver,
jewelry, documents belonging to Mr. and Mrs. Daniel, and a pawn
ticket identified as being issued to appellant by William Flynn
of Fredericksburg Pawn, Inc. Ms. Gurney also stated that during
her relationship with appellant, he had a drug problem. Lastly,
William Fox testified that appellant had asked him if he "wanted
to do some burglaries."
The Commonwealth argues that appellant's drug use is
admissible to show a motive for larceny. Assuming without
deciding that the admission of this statement was error, based
upon a review of this record, we conclude beyond a reasonable
doubt that the error was harmless. "A defendant is entitled to a
fair trial but not a perfect one." Lutwak v. United States, 344
U.S. 604, 619 (1953). Error in cases of improperly admitted
evidence may be shown to be harmless if the record contains
"overwhelming" evidence of guilt. Clagett v. Commonwealth, 252
Va. 79, 91, 472 S.E.2d 263, 270 (1996). The appellate court must
determine on the basis of its own reading of the record the
probable impact of the evidence on the minds of the jury and
whether the admission was sufficiently prejudicial to require
reversal. Arnold v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 275, 282, 356
S.E.2d 847, 851 (1987).
2
The undisputed facts established that appellant was in
possession of the recently stolen property, pawned several items
the day after the theft, left others at the home of his former
girlfriend, and asked William Fox if he would help appellant
commit a burglary. Additionally, based upon appellant's
extensive prior criminal history, including eight prior
burglary- or larceny-type offenses, any mention of a possible
drug habit could not be said to have affected the sentence.
Based upon the overwhelming evidence of appellant's guilt, we
hold that the admission of Ms. Gurney's statement, if error, was
harmless. Thus, we affirm the convictions.
Affirmed.
3