Mitchell v. Commonwealth

Supreme Court of Virginia

Mitchell v. Commonwealth

191 S.E.2d 261, 213 Va. 149, 1972 Va. LEXIS 322

CourtSupreme Court of Virginia

DecidedSeptember 1, 1972

DocketRecord 7927

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 191 S.E.2d 261 (Mitchell v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mitchell v. Commonwealth, 191 S.E.2d 261, 213 Va. 149, 1972 Va. LEXIS 322 (Va. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

A jury convicted Karl David Mitchell of robbery for the theft by force of $743.75 from the manager of a Burger Chef restaurant. The jury fixed punishment at five years in the penitentiary. The trial court imposed the sentence, and we granted Mitchell a writ of error.

The sole question to be resolved is whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that a robbery occurred.

Robbery, undefined in Code § 18.1-91, is defined in our common law as “the taking, with intent to steal, of the personal property of another, from his person or in his presence, against his will, by violence or intimidation.” Mason v. Commonwealth, 200 Va. 253, 254, 105 S.E.2d 149, 150 (1958) (emphasis added). All elements of the common law offense must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in order to establish that a robbery has occurred. Maxwell v. Commonwealth, 165 Va. 860, 864, 183 S.E. 452, 454 (1936).

*150 We have searched the record in this case and have found no evidence that there was a taking of any money. Therefore, since this element of robbery was riot proved, the Commonwealth failed to establish that a robbery was in fact committed.

Accordingly, the judgment will be reversed and the case will be remanded for a new trial if the Commonwealth be so advised.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

A jury convicted Karl David Mitchell of robbery for the theft by force of $743.75 from the manager of a Burger Chef restaurant. The jury fixed punishment at five years in the penitentiary. The trial court imposed the sentence, and we granted Mitchell a writ of error.

The sole question to be resolved is whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that a robbery occurred.

Robbery, undefined in Code § 18.1-91, is defined in our common law as “the taking, with intent to steal, of the personal property of another, from his person or in his presence, against his will, by violence or intimidation.” Mason v. Commonwealth, 200 Va. 253, 254, 105 S.E.2d 149, 150 (1958) (emphasis added). All elements of the common law offense must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in order to establish that a robbery has occurred. Maxwell v. Commonwealth, 165 Va. 860, 864, 183 S.E. 452, 454 (1936).

*150 We have searched the record in this case and have found no evidence that there was a taking of any money. Therefore, since this element of robbery was riot proved, the Commonwealth failed to establish that a robbery was in fact committed.

Accordingly, the judgment will be reversed and the case will be remanded for a new trial if the Commonwealth be so advised.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 S.E.2d 261, 213 Va. 149, 1972 Va. LEXIS 322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-v-commonwealth-va-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack