Keith S. Davis v. Commonwealth ( 1996 )

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-