Opinion
Record No. 2061-93-4
Decided: February 28, 1995
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY, William L. Winston, Judge
Thomas J. Kelley, Jr. for appellant.
Donald R. Curry, Senior Assistant Attorney General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Present: Judges Willis, Bray and Fitzpatrick
Pursuant to Code Sec. 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.
Roy Levon Pittman (appellant) was convicted in a jury trial of possessing or using a "sawed-off" shotgun in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of a crime of violence in violation of Code Sec. 18.2-300(A). On appeal, appellant argues that the trial court erred in allowing into evidence a shotgun that was not sufficiently identified as being the gun used in the robbery. We disagree and affirm the conviction.
Appellant was also convicted of: (1) robbery in violation of Code § 18.2-58; (2) conspiracy to commit a felony in violation of Code §§ 18.2-22 and 18.2-58; and (3) use of a firearm in the commission of a robbery in violation of Code § 18.2-53.1. Appellant does not appeal these convictions.
On May 18, 1992, James Grossberg (Grossberg) was walking to his car parked in front of his house when he was stopped by appellant, who was armed with a sawed-off shotgun. Two other young men accompanied appellant and were standing on the other side of Grossberg's car. Grossberg gave appellant his car keys, closed his eyes, and heard the men drive away in his car. Appellant was arrested May 30, 1992 in Maryland driving another stolen car with a sawed-off shotgun hidden beneath the front passenger seat.
At trial, Grossberg testified that he was familiar with guns, described in detail the gun used by appellant, and stated that the gun presented by the Commonwealth was the same shape, size, and apparent caliber as appellant's gun. The trial judge admitted the shotgun into evidence over appellant's objection. Another man involved in the robbery, Kenneth Tibbs (Tibbs), recognized the shotgun as appellant's and testified that he had touched the gun "at the house."
"[E]very fact, however remote or insignificant, that tends to establish a probability or improbability of fact in issue is admissible." Stewart v. Commonwealth, 245 Va. 222, 239, 427 S.E.2d 394, 405, cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 143 (1993). Grossberg described appellant's gun in detail, indicated his familiarity with guns, and identified the gun as being similar to the one used by appellant. Tibbs confirmed that the gun was appellant's and the one used "at the house." Thus, the testimony of these two witnesses supported an inference that the gun submitted by the Commonwealth was the gun used in the robbery and provided a sufficient basis for its admission into evidence.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.