Opinion
Record No. 0076-91-1
December 1, 1992
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK ROBERT W. STEWART, JUDGE.
Bruce C. Sams (Sams Hill, P.C., on brief), for appellant.
Marla Lynn Graff, Assistant Attorney General (Mary Sue Terry, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Present: Judges Baker, Bray and Fitzpatrick.
Argued at Norfolk, Virginia.
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated publication.
Darrell Evan Perry (appellant) appeals from a judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of Norfolk (trial court) which approved his jury trial conviction for attempted robbery. The sole issue on appeal is whether the evidence is sufficient to support that judgment. Appellant argues that the trial court erred when it refused to set aside the jury's verdict. We disagree and affirm the judgment.
"When considering the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal of a criminal conviction, we must view all the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth and accord to the evidence all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. The jury's verdict will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it." Traverso v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 172, 176, 366 S.E.2d 719, 721 (1988) (citations omitted). The credibility of the witnesses is a question for the jury. Zirkle v. Commonwealth, 189 Va. 862, 870, 55 S.E.2d 24, 29 (1949).
On November 12, 1988, Joseph Harowitz, a sixty-eight year old Caucasian male, was returning home from a Masonic meeting. He was travelling in a van and was dropped off by others. He arrived home between 10:30 and 11:00 p.m. As he was walking up the stairs, "three people, young men, came into the apartment behind [him], and two passed [him] and rushed by [him] and went up to the door of [his] apartment, tried to make entrance into [his] apartment." One had an object that Harowitz believed to be a gun. Harowitz stated that these men asked him for his car keys and his money. Harowitz only had a few dollars in his pocket which the men did not take. Harowitz began to "holler" and one of the men hit him with the sharp object that Harowitz believed to be a gun. His injuries required medical treatment. Harowitz was unable to identify appellant as one of the robbers, but testified that appellant is of the same height as one of the perpetrators and that all three men who attempted to rob him were black. Appellant is black.
On November 23, 1988, Investigator Stein arrived at appellant's home at approximately 6:30 a.m. with a warrant for his arrest. Appellant was arrested and transported to the police station. Stein discovered that appellant was a juvenile and asked his mother to accompany them to the station. Upon the mother's arrival, the police explained that her son had been implicated in some crimes and requested permission to talk to him. Appellant's mother expressed no objection. Stein then explained the rights form to both appellant and his mother. He read all of the questions to them, and had both appellant and his mother read the questions themselves. Both appellant and his mother were given an opportunity to have the police explain anything they did not understand. They both signed the statement and, thereafter, appellant gave a full confession to the crime. Stein read into evidence appellant's statement:
We seen the man get off the van. We followed him to his apartment. We went upstairs. We came in behind him with the .38 and the sawed-off shotgun. We met him at the front of his door. We showed the gun. We asked for his keys. He started yelling for help, so I left, and J.R. hit him with the sawed-off shotgun. That was it.
Appellant further told Stein that the man they attempted to rob was an "old white man."
"[A] confession is competent evidence tending to prove, along with other evidence, the corpus delicti, although corpus delicti cannot be established by the uncorroborated extrajudicial confession of the accused alone." Canady v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 331, 333, 200 S.E.2d 575, 576 (1973) (citation omitted). "Further, where, as here, the accused has fully confessed the crime, only slight corroborative evidence is necessary to establish the corpus delicti." Watkins v. Commonwealth, 238 Va. 341, 348-49, 385 S.E.2d 50, 54 (1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1074 (1990) (emphasis supplied) (citation omitted). "It is not necessary . . . that there be independent corroboration of all the contents of the confession, or even of all the elements of the crime. The requirement of corroboration is limited to the facts constituting the corpus delicti." Id. at 348, 385 S.E.2d at 54.
In the present case, sufficient evidence corroborates appellant's confession and establishes the corpus delicti. Harowitz, a sixty-eight year old male, testified that he was followed into his apartment building after leaving the van, accosted, asked for his keys and money and was hit by a sharp object, which he believed to be a gun.
Harowitz's testimony concerning the attempted robbery is consistent with and corroborates appellant's confession. Thus, sufficient evidence supports the jury's verdict. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.