Keith S. Davis v. Commonwealth ( 1996 )


Menu:
  •                   COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
    Present: Chief Judge Moon, Judge Elder and Senior Judge Cole
    Argued at Richmond, Virginia
    KEITH S. DAVIS
    MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
    v.   Record No. 0044-96-2             JUDGE LARRY G. ELDER
    SEPTEMBER 10, 1996
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
    FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HENRICO COUNTY
    George F. Tidey, Judge
    Christopher J. Collins for appellant.
    Steven A. Witmer, Assistant Attorney General
    (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General;
    Brian Wainger, Assistant Attorney General, on
    brief), for appellee.
    Keith S. Davis (appellant) appeals his convictions for
    breaking and entering, in violation of Code § 18.2-91, and grand
    larceny, in violation of Code § 18.2-95.    Appellant contends that
    the evidence of his fingerprint on a pane of window glass was
    insufficient to sustain his convictions.    We disagree and affirm
    the trial court's judgment.
    On April 7, 1994, at approximately 9:00 p.m., the occupants
    of an apartment in Henrico County returned to their residence
    after a four to five hour absence.    The occupants discovered that
    a kitchen window pane was missing, their back door was slightly
    ajar, and several items had been taken from their apartment.
    *
    Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
    designated for publication.
    An Henrico County Police investigator arrived at the
    apartment at 10:30 p.m. that night.   After unsuccessfully
    attempting to locate latent fingerprints in the apartment and at
    the point of forced entry, the investigator searched the
    immediate area.   He discovered a sheet of glass lying a short
    distance behind the apartment near a row of trees.   The unbroken
    glass pane appeared to be the pane removed from the apartment
    window, which was approximately five and one-half feet from the
    ground.   A latent fingerprint on the glass matched appellant's
    prints.
    The occupants did not know appellant nor had he ever been a
    guest in their residence.
    At a bench trial on August 16, 1995, the trial court found
    appellant guilty of breaking and entering and grand larceny.
    Appellant appeals his convictions to this Court.
    "On appeal, we review the evidence in the light most
    favorable to the Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable
    inferences fairly deducible therefrom."   Martin v. Commonwealth,
    
    4 Va. App. 438
    , 443, 
    358 S.E.2d 415
    , 418 (1987).
    To establish a defendant's criminal agency,
    evidence that his fingerprint was found at
    the scene of a crime must be coupled with
    evidence of other circumstances tending to
    reasonably exclude the hypothesis that the
    print was impressed at a time other than that
    of the crime. The circumstances, however,
    need not be totally independent of the
    fingerprint itself and may properly include
    circumstances such as the location of the
    print, the character of the place or premises
    where it was found and the accessibility of
    -2-
    the general public to the object on which the
    print was impressed.
    Tyler v. Commonwealth, 
    22 Va. App. 480
    , 482, 
    471 S.E.2d 772
    , 773
    (1996)(quotations and citations omitted).
    In this case, police found appellant's fingerprint on a pane
    of glass approximately fourteen feet behind the apartment.
    Appellant unquestionably handled the pane of glass.    The pane
    matched the description of the pane of glass removed from the
    apartment window.    Additionally, the apartment's occupants did
    not know appellant nor had appellant ever been a guest in their
    apartment.    Finally, the apartment's five foot high kitchen
    window was not easily accessible to the public.    In light of
    these facts, appellant's unexplained fingerprint on the glass
    "provided sufficient evidence for a rational fact finder to
    conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant committed the
    crimes."     
    Id. at 485,
    471 S.E.2d at 774.
    The holding in this case follows a long line of cases in
    which appellate courts of this Commonwealth have held that
    fingerprint evidence along with other suspicious circumstances
    may be sufficient to support a conviction for burglary or
    robbery.   In Avent v. Commonwealth, 
    209 Va. 474
    , 479-80, 
    164 S.E.2d 655
    , 659 (1968), the Supreme Court stated:
    A latent fingerprint found at the scene of
    the crime, shown to be that of an accused,
    tends to show that he was at the scene of the
    crime. The attendant circumstances with
    respect to the print may show that he was at
    the scene of the crime at the time it was
    committed. If they do so show, it is a
    -3-
    rational inference, consistent with the rule
    of law both as to fingerprints and
    circumstantial evidence, that the accused was
    the criminal agent.
    (Quotation and citation omitted).    See also Ricks v.
    Commonwealth, 
    218 Va. 523
    , 
    237 S.E.2d 810
    (1977)(affirming
    convictions of a defendant whose fingerprint was found on a jar
    in the bedroom of the burglarized home); Parrish v. Commonwealth,
    
    17 Va. App. 361
    , 
    437 S.E.2d 215
    (1993)(affirming the conviction
    of a defendant whose palm and thumb prints were found on a bank
    deposit slip).
    For the foregoing reasons, we affirm appellant's
    convictions.
    Affirmed.
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 0044962

Filed Date: 9/10/1996

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014