Opinion
Record No. 0340-93-4
Decided: May 31, 1994
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY, Thomas R. Monroe, Judge
Affirmed.
Nora Raum, for appellant.
Margaret Ann B. Walker, Assistant Attorney General (Stephen D. Rosenthal, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Present: Judges Willis, Elder, and Senior Judge Duff
Pursuant to Code Sec. 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.
The judgments of the trial court are affirmed. Delbert T. Copeland was found in possession of a ticket memorializing the pawning a few days later of property stolen in a burglary. He contends that his mere possession of the ticket was insufficient to prove that he pawned, and thus possessed, the property. Even should we accept this contention, we nonetheless find the evidence sufficient to prove more than his mere possession of the ticket. The ticket was issued by the pawnbroker to "R. Smith." Copeland admitted that he frequently used "Robert Smith" as an alias. The physical description written by the pawnbroker on the ticket matched Copeland. Copeland's signature and address were on the back. Copeland falsely explained his acquisition of the ticket. This evidence sufficiently supported the inference that Copeland was the person who pawned the property and thus was in possession of it shortly after the burglary. See Criner v. Town of Vinton, 161 Va. 987, 989-90, 170 S.E. 562, 563 (1933). Under familiar principles, recent possession of property stolen in a burglary supports the inference that Copeland was the burglar.
The arresting officer's testimony that Copeland was covered with broken glass at the time of his arrest was not evidence that Copeland had committed another crime, but was simply a part of the officer's general description of the circumstances surrounding the arrest. Furthermore, Copeland admitted in his testimony that he had committed the only crime to which that broken glass could be related.
The trial court did not err in admitting the pawn ticket for property stolen in the October 19, 1990, burglary. Copeland testified that the two pawn slips, relating respectively to the October 15 burglary on trial and the October 19 burglary, had been given to him by another man on October 17. The pawn slip relating to the October 19 burglary demonstrated the falsity of Copeland's testimony and was thus relevant. See Essex v. Commonwealth, ___ Va. App. ___ ___, ___ S.E.2d ___, ___ (1994).
The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.
Affirmed.