Opinion
Record No. 0895-92-1
November 9, 1993
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF HAMPTON WALTER J. FORD, JUDGE.
Charles E. Haden for appellant.
Kathleen B. Martin, Assistant Attorney General (Stephen D. Rosenthal, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Present: Chief Judge Moon, Judges Baker and Bray.
Argued at Norfolk, Virginia.
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.
On appeal from his bench trial convictions by the Circuit Court of the City of Hampton (trial court) for breaking and entering, use of a firearm in the commission of breaking and entering, shooting into an occupied building and petit larceny, Finess O. McCain (appellant) contends that the trial court erred: (1) when it failed to order the Commonwealth to produce evidence he asserts is exculpatory; (2) when it refused to order the Commonwealth to reveal the details of any agreement entered into with Precious Grayson (Grayson), a defense witness; and (3) in finding that the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Three clear, simple principles of appellate practice control this appeal. The trial court is presumed to have rendered a correct judgment. See Code § 8.01-680; Johnson v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 391, 396, 404 S.E.2d 384, 387 (1991). The burden is on the party who appeals to prove by the record that the trial court erred. Johnson, 12 Va. App. at 396, 404 S.E.2d at 387. The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. Higginbotham v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 349, 352, 218 S.E.2d 534, 537 (1975).
We have examined the record and find that the evidence appellant claims to be exculpatory does not support his assertion that the trial court erroneously denied his request for the written statement the defense witness had given the police. Our review of the statement discloses that it was inculpatory and would not have assisted the defense because the witness stated that "they told me [appellant] shot in the door and took the VCR." The Commonwealth is not required to produce the statement of a witness unless it contains exculpatory evidence. See Currie v. Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 204, 208, 210, 391 S.E.2d 79, 82-83 (1990). Refusal to order Grayson's statement be given to appellant was not error and the record fails to show that any "deal" had been made with Grayson by the Commonwealth.
The Commonwealth presented evidence to show that on July 9, 1991, Felicia Robertson (Robertson) drove Grayson and Keyanna Bethea (Bethea) to the home of C.J. Ruffin (Ruffin), allegedly the father of Grayson's minor child, Malachi. Grayson wanted to talk to Ruffin about a burn Malachi had received on his hand while in Ruffin's care. On the way to Ruffin's home, the three women stopped at a 7-Eleven where they encountered appellant and his friend, "O.Z." Appellant became "upset when [Grayson] told him that Maliki [sic] got burned." Thereafter, the women proceeded to Ruffin's house. They each testified that appellant did not accompany them and that they did not see appellant following them.
Both Robertson and Grayson knocked on Ruffin's door, but he would not come out and talk to Grayson. Bethea then saw appellant and his friend "standing behind a tree." Appellant came "running from the side of the house saying, 'you-all go; I'm getting ready to do this,'" and he "took the gun from out of his friend's hand." The women heard gunshots as they drove away.
Betty Hawkins, Ruffin's neighbor, saw appellant shoot at Ruffin's front door, enter the home and then run out of the house carrying a VCR. The two men then "got in the car and speeded out of the driveway." When Ruffin came downstairs, he discovered that his door had been damaged by gun shots and that his VCR was missing.
As the women were driving down the road, appellant and his friend "came zooming past" in their car and appellant said, "I got a VCR." In addition, the next day appellant told the women that "he shot in the house and took the VCR."
We find sufficient evidence in the record to support appellant's convictions.
For the reasons stated, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.
Affirmed.