Eddie Arnold Taylor Jr v. Commonwealth ( 2003 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Annunziata, Frank and Senior Judge Bray
Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia
EDDIE ARNOLD TAYLOR, JR.
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 0735-02-1 JUDGE RICHARD S. BRAY
MARCH 4, 2003
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK
Charles D. Griffith, Jr., Judge
Christian L. Connell for appellant.
Eugene Murphy, Assistant Attorney General
(Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General, on
brief), for appellee.
Eddie Arnold Taylor, Jr. (defendant) was convicted in a
bench trial of robbery, a violation of Code § 18.2-58. On
appeal, he contends the Commonwealth failed to prove the force,
violence or intimidation requisite to the offense. Finding no
error, we affirm the conviction.
In accordance with well established principles, "[o]n
appeal, 'we review the evidence in the light most favorable to
the Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable inferences
fairly deducible therefrom.'" Archer v. Commonwealth, 26
Va. App. 1, 11, 492 S.E.2d 826, 831 (1997) (citation omitted).
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
Viewed accordingly, the record establishes that Diane
Anunziado had been shopping on the afternoon of March 25, 2001
and returned to her vehicle carrying two packages and her purse.
After opening the rear door of the car and placing the packages
on the seat, "[s]omebody came up behind" Anunziado and "pulled
. . . hard" on her purse. Because she was holding the purse in
both hands, with the strap on her arm, Anunziado was "flung
around" "so hard it knocked off [her] sunglasses." Once "spun
around" and "face-to-face" with defendant, Anunziado demanded,
"give back my blanking purse," but defendant instead "grabbed"
the purse and fled, with Anunziado in pursuit.
The elements of robbery, a common law
offense in Virginia, include a "'taking,
with intent to steal, of the personal
property of another, from his person or in
his presence, against his will, by violence
or intimidation'" which precedes or is
"concomitant with the taking."
Jones v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 566, 572, 414 S.E.2d 193, 196
(1992) (citations omitted). "The touching or violation
necessary to prove [robbery] may be indirect, but cannot result
merely from the force associated with the taking." Bivins v.
Commonwealth, 19 Va. App. 750, 752, 454 S.E.2d 741, 742 (1995)
(citation omitted).
Thus, "conduct which is generally described as 'purse
snatching' is a larceny unless the evidence proves the accused
employed violence against the victim's person or used
- 2 -
intimidation." Jones v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 736, 739, 496
S.E.2d 668, 669 (1998).
[T]here must be "additional circumstances at
the time of the snatching tending to
transform the taking from a larceny to a
robbery." For example, these circumstances
are present when a struggle ensues, where
the victim is knocked down, or where the
victim is put in fear — in other words,
where the defendant employs violence or
intimidation against the victim's person.
Winn v. Commonwealth, 21 Va. App. 179, 181-82, 462 S.E.2d 911,
912-13 (1995) (citations omitted).
Here, Anunziado was violently "flung around" when defendant
forcefully pulled the purse from her hands and arm. Once "spun
around," she looked defendant directly in the face as he finally
"grabbed" the purse from her person and fled. Clearly, such
conduct constituted an assault upon Anunziado "unrelated to the
force necessary to remove the purse" and was sufficiently
violent to support the subject conviction. Jones, 26 Va. App.
at 740, 496 S.E.2d at 670.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court.
Affirmed.
- 3 -