Opinion
Record No. 0073-91-1
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 robbery. The sole issue on appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for robbery. We disagree.
"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 exclusively for the jury." Zirkle v. Commonwealth, 189 Va. 862, 870, 55 S.E.2d 24, 29 (1949).
On November 2, 1988, Brian Lee was working at a 7-Eleven convenience store on Cromwell Road in the City of Norfolk. Lee arrived at work at approximately 11:00 p.m. on November 1, 1988. Shortly before midnight, continuing into the early morning hours, Lee was standing behind the counter with his co-worker. Lee noticed a man walk into the store, go to the milk vault, look into it and then walk out of the store. Lee then observed a man who appeared to be the same person walk back into the store with another man, but this time he was wearing a mask. Lee testified that he could tell it was the same person who came in and looked into the milk vault earlier because the man was wearing the same jacket, pants and shoes. The man with the mask pointed a gun at Lee and told him to open the cash register. He opened the register and both men took the money and left the store. One robber was wearing a full face mask and the other robber had a cap pulled down over his eyes.
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 told her that they would like to talk to him. The mother had no objection and the police explained the rights form to both appellant and his mother. Stein read to them all of the questions, and had 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. Both signed the statement and thereafter appellant gave a full confession to the crime. Stein read into evidence appellant's statement:
Parked the car on the other side of the railroad tracks, walked down the railroad, went behind 7-Eleven with the guys. We were — went into the — went into the store to see how many people were there, came out back, said it was okay.
So we went in there, pointed the shotgun to the cashier, and told her [sic] to give us the money. They pulled out the cash register. J.R. knocked the other guy down the [sic] was in the store. Then we got the money, so we ran behind the 7-Eleven, down the railroad tracks, got into the car, and left.
Appellant further stated that he was the one wearing the mask and that he was carrying a sawed-off shotgun.
"[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. Lee testified that a man walked into the store, went to the milk vault and then left the store. Subsequently, two men walked back into the store. One, who was wearing the same clothes as the one who previously had entered the store, was wearing a full face mask and carrying a gun. These men demanded that Lee open the cash register. They took the money and left. The slight inconsistencies between Lee's version of the events and appellant's version are insignificant. We find that Lee's testimony concerning the robbery sufficiently corroborates and is consistent with appellant's confession. Thus, sufficient evidence supports the jury's verdict. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.