Mark Anthony Reid v. Commonwealth

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Chief Judge Moon, Judges Coleman and Fitzpatrick
MARK ANTHONY REID
v. Record No. 0781-94-3 MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
JUDGE SAM W. COLEMAN, III
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FEBRUARY 6, 1996
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF AMHERST COUNTY
J. Michael Gamble, Judge
J. Thompson Shrader, for appellant.
Richard Rizk, Assistant Attorney General
(James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General;
Richard B. Smith, Assistant Attorney General,
on brief), for appellee.
Mark Anthony Reid appeals his convictions for robbery,
attempted robbery, use of a firearm in the commission of robbery,
and use of a firearm in the commission of attempted robbery.
Reid contends that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of
four separate robberies committed prior to the crimes for which
he is being prosecuted. We find no err and affirm the
defendant's convictions.
Evidence of other independent acts, including criminal acts,
is generally inadmissible unless offered to prove "motive,
intent, plan or scheme, or any other relevant element of the
offense on trial." Scott v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 519, 527, 323
S.E.2d 572, 577 (1984); see also Kirkpatrick v. Commonwealth, 211
Va. 269, 272, 176 S.E.2d 802, 805 (1970); Sutphin v.
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
Commonwealth, 1 Va. App. 241, 245-46, 337 S.E.2d 897, 899 (1985).
"[E]vidence that implicates an accused in other crimes
unrelated to the offense for which the accused is being tried is
inadmissible because it creates confusion of issues, causes
unfair surprise, and causes undue prejudice." Boggs v.
Commonwealth, 199 Va. 478, 488, 100 S.E.2d 766, 773 (1957).
Thus, unless the evidence of other crimes was relevant to prove a
material fact, and its relevance outweighed its prejudicial
effect, the evidence was not admissible.
Here, the record reveals that the defendant remained in the
car outside the Pizza Hut while his accomplices entered the
restaurant and carried out the robbery. Therefore, Penny Casey's
testimony regarding the defendant's participation in four other
robberies that took place in Roanoke earlier that same night was
relevant to prove his knowledge, intent, and participation as a
principal in the Pizza Hut robbery. Casey testified, for
instance, that the defendant stated prior to the robbery of the
Pizza Hut "that he was a little disappointed" about the amount of
money obtained in Roanoke, and "was looking for someone else to
rob." "When guilty intent is an essential element of the offense
charged, evidence of similar acts committed by the accused and of
his conduct at or about the time of the commission of the offense
charged against him is admissible as tending to establish his
criminal intent or motive." McWhorter v. Commonwealth, 191 Va.
857, 870, 63 S.E.2d 20, 26 (1951).
- 2 -
The evidence of the defendant's participation in the four
prior robberies was highly relevant to prove the defendant's
intent and motive as to the offense charged, and to prove that he
was not an innocent actor. The trial court did not abuse its
discretion by finding that the probative value of the prior
robberies outweighed the prejudice to the defendant. Spencer v.
Commonwealth, 240 Va. 78, 90, 393 S.E.2d 609, 617 (1990).
Accordingly, we affirm the defendant's convictions.
Affirmed.
- 3 -