Opinion
Record No. 0322-93-2
March 15, 1994
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY HERBERT C. GILL, JR., JUDGE.
R. Donald Ford, Jr., for appellant.
Leah A. Darron, Assistant Attorney General (Stephen D. Rosenthal, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Present: Chief Judge Moon, Judges Coleman and Elder.
Argued at Richmond, Virginia.
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.
Upon review of the record, we find the evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Theadore Ray Tharpe committed grand larceny. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction.
Loren Mays picked up Tharpe, a hitchhiker, in his automobile, and the two men checked into a motel. They drank beer all day, drove around, and watched television in their motel room. Mays fell asleep at 1:00 p.m. When he awoke four hours later, he discovered that his wallet containing $600 was missing from his hip pocket. Mays' car keys and his Buick automobile were also gone. The door to the motel room, which had been locked, was ajar. Tharpe was no longer in the motel room. Mays was surprised at Tharpe's absence because he had promised Tharpe a ride to Richmond the next morning.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth and granting to it "all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom," the evidence is sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Tharpe was the person who stole Mays' wallet, money, car keys, and car. Higginbotham v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 349, 352, 218 S.E.2d 534, 537 (1975).
Circumstantial evidence is entitled to the same weight as direct evidence, provided it is sufficiently convincing to exclude every reasonable hypotheses except that of guilt.Coleman v. Commonwealth, 226 Va. 31, 53, 307 S.E.2d 864, 876 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1109 (1984). The circumstances of time, place, motive, means and conduct proven must be sufficient to support the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Cantrell v. Commonwealth, 229 Va. 387, 398, 329 S.E.2d 22, 29 (1985).
Tharpe was the only other person in the motel room when Mays went to sleep, and he knew that Mays owned the Buick in the parking lot. In addition to Tharpe's apparent need of cash and a means of transportation, his unexplained act of leaving before he and Mays reached their destination is inconsistent with an hypothesis of innocence. There is no evidence in the record establishing that any person other then Tharpe was present in, or had access to, the motel room.
All the circumstantial evidence points to Tharpe as the person who stole Mays' wallet, keys, and car, and there is no reasonable hypothesis that any other person had access to the room or the opportunity to commit the offense. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction.
Affirmed.