Vanessa Hughes v. Commonwealth of Virginia

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Baker, Coleman and Overton
Argued at Salem, Virginia
VANESSA HUGHES
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 2827-96-3 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON
JANUARY 13, 1998
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF AMHERST COUNTY
J. Michael Gamble, Judge
B. Leigh Drewry, Jr., for appellant.
Richard B. Smith, Assistant Attorney General
(Richard Cullen, Attorney General, on brief),
for appellee.
Vanessa Hughes (defendant) was convicted of grand larceny of
a video camera, in violation of Code § 18.2-95. On appeal, she
asks that her conviction be reversed because the Commonwealth
failed to prove the corpus delicti or the criminal agency of the
crime. Because the Commonwealth met its burden of proof, we
affirm her conviction.
The parties are fully conversant with the record in the
case, and because this memorandum opinion carries no precedential
value, we recite only those facts necessary to the disposition of
this appeal.
"We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly
deducible therefrom." Higginbotham v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 349,
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
352, 218 S.E.2d 534, 537 (1975). So viewed, the evidence
established that on the morning of August 19, 1996 the victim
owned a video camera which she kept in her bedroom. After
defendant had left her home, she discovered the camera missing.
Later that day, defendant confessed to the victim that she and
another individual had taken the video camera, pawned it and
bought crack cocaine with the proceeds.
When there is a confession, only slight corroborative
evidence is necessary to establish the corpus delicti and
criminal agency. See Clozza v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 124, 133,
321 S.E.2d 273, 279 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1230 (1985).
Here, the corroborative evidence is far from slight: defendant
was in the victim's home alone immediately prior to the
disappearance of the camera, she had a motive to take the camera
and the opportunity. The evidence overwhelmingly establishes
that the camera was stolen and that defendant was the one who
stole it.
Under the facts of this case, we cannot say that the
decision of the trial court is plainly wrong or without evidence
to support it. Therefore, we affirm the conviction.
Affirmed.
2