Troy Donahue Barksdale v. Commonwealth of Virginia

• Court: Court of Appeals of Virginia
• Decided: March 2, 1999
• Docket: 1184983
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Coleman, Bumgardner and Lemons Argued at Salem, Virginia

TROY DONAHUE BARKSDALE MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 1184-98-3 JUDGE SAM W. COLEMAN III MARCH 2, 1999 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF MARTINSVILLE Charles M. Stone, Judge

J. Grady Monday (Monday & Monday, on brief), for appellant.

Steven A. Witmer, Assistant Attorney General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Troy Donahue Barksdale was convicted in a bench trial of

grand larceny of a firearm, possession of a firearm by a

convicted felon, and statutory burglary. On appeal, Barksdale

contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the

larceny and burglary convictions.

"'Possession of property recently stolen is prima facie evidence of guilt of the crime of larceny, and throws upon the

accused the burden of accounting for that possession.'" Hope v.

Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 381, 385, 392 S.E.2d 830, 833 (1990)

(en banc) (quoting Fout v. Commonwealth, 199 Va. 184, 190, 98

S.E.2d 817, 821 (1957)). Furthermore:

"[W]hen evidence has been introduced, which, if believed, establishes that a house has been broken and entered and goods stolen

*Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code § 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication. therefrom, and warrants an inference beyond a reasonable doubt that the breaking and entering and the larceny of the goods were committed at the same time, by the same person or persons, as a part of the same transaction, upon principal and authority the exclusive possession of the stolen goods shortly thereafter, unexplained or falsely denied, has the same efficiency to give rise to an inference that the possessor is guilty of the breaking and entering as to an inference that he is guilty of the larceny."

Fout, 199 Va. at 190-91, 98 S.E.2d at 822 (quoting Drinkard v.

Commonwealth, 163 Va. 1074, 1083, 178 S.E. 25, 28 (1935)).

Barksdale does not deny that he was in possession of

recently stolen property, nor does he deny that the evidence

supports an inference that the breaking and entering and the

larceny were committed at the same time.

When confronted, Barksdale lied about his name, fled from

the arrest and ultimately issued two conflicting exculpatory

statements explaining how he came into possession of the gun.

However, "[t]he fact finder need not believe the accused's

explanation and may infer that he is trying to conceal his

guilt." Black v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 838, 842, 284 S.E.2d 608,

610 (1981); Speight v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 83, 88, 354

S.E.2d 95, 98 (1987) (en banc). Additionally, Barksdale's false

statement of material fact and his decision to flee entitled the

fact finder to draw inferences supporting guilt. See Welch v.

Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 518, 525, 425 S.E.2d 101, 106 (1992).

Viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, and

granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible

- 2 - therefrom, Higginbotham v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 349, 352, 218

S.E.2d 534, 537 (1975), the evidence was sufficient to support

the larceny and burglary convictions. Accordingly, the judgment

of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

- 3 -