JUDGE ROSEMARIE ANNUNZIATA.
Upon a Petition for Rehearing En Banc Before the Full Court
On February 5, 2007 came the appellee, by the Attorney General of Virginia, and filed a petition requesting that the Court set aside the judgment rendered herein on January 23, 2007, and grant a rehearing en banc thereof.
On consideration whereof, the petition for rehearing en banc is granted, the mandate entered herein on January 23, 2007 is stayed pending the decision of the Court en banc, and the appeal is reinstated on the docket of this Court.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 5A:35, the following briefing schedule hereby is established: Appellant shall file an opening brief upon rehearing en banc within 21 days of the date of entry of this order; appellee shall file an appellee's brief upon rehearing en banc within 14 days of the date on which the opening brief is filed; and appellant may file a reply brief upon rehearing en banc within 14 days of the date on which the appellee's brief is filed. The appellant shall attach as an addendum to the opening brief upon rehearing en banc a copy of the opinion previously rendered by the Court in this matter. It is further ordered that the appellee shall file twelve additional copies of the appendix previously filed in this case.
Howard Lewis Vincent, Jr. was convicted of breaking and entering with the intent to commit larceny in violation of Code § 18.2-91. On appeal, Vincent challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. Finding the evidence was insufficient to prove Vincent possessed the intent to commit larceny at the time of the breaking, we reverse his conviction.
FACTS
Under familiar principles of appellate review, we examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. See Haskins v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 145, 149-50, 521 S.E.2d 777, 779 (1999).
After 6:00 a.m. on June 9, 2005, a male intruder broke into the Ross Store on North Washington Street in Alexandria. The store was not open for business at the time. The store's security cameras recorded the perpetrator entering the store by breaking a glass door with a metal pole. The cameras also recorded some of the intruder's actions once inside. The perpetrator walked past the cash registers without touching them. Before he exited the store through the hole in the glass door, the perpetrator shoved a shopping cart at something outside the camera's range.
The Ross Store was equipped with an audible alarm system designed to sound when the store's entrance was breached or movement was detected within the store. When the audible alarm system was tripped, a message was sent to the security company, which then contacted the police.
At 6:40 a.m., the police went to the Ross Store in response to a reported alarm. When Stephen Gilbert, the store manager, arrived on the scene at about 6:45 a.m., the perpetrator was no longer in the store and no audible alarm was sounding. Gilbert and the police reviewed the videotape recorded by the store's security cameras. The police searched the vicinity of the store for the person depicted on the videotape, but did not locate anyone matching the physical characteristics of the intruder.
The police arrested Vincent for public intoxication at about 6:00 p.m. that same day near an Alexandria convenience store. Vincent's physical appearance matched that of the person recorded by the security cameras breaking into the Ross Store. The police searched Vincent, but did not find in his possession any merchandise belonging to the Ross Store.
Gilbert testified all the store's cash was accounted for, and he was unable to determine if any merchandise was missing from the store after the incident. The store's inventory included small items that could be easily concealed. Gilbert discovered that a shopping cart had been thrown into a rack of clothing, dispersing the merchandise.
ANALYSIS
In pertinent part, Code § 18.2-90 provides as follows:
If any person in the nighttime enters without breaking or in the daytime breaks and enters or enters and conceals himself in a dwelling house or an adjoining, occupied outhouse or in the nighttime enters without breaking or at any time breaks and enters or enters and conceals himself in any building permanently affixed to realty . . . with intent to commit murder, rape, robbery or arson in violation of §§ 18.2-77, 18.2-79 or § 18.2-80, he shall be deemed guilty of statutory burglary. . . .
Code § 18.2-91 provides that "[i]f any person commits any of the acts mentioned in § 18.2-90 with intent to commit larceny, . . . he shall be guilty of statutory burglary[.]"
Vincent contends the evidence was insufficient to prove he intended to commit larceny at the time of the breaking and entering.
Where, as in this case, "an indictment charges an offense which consists of an act combined with a particular intent, proof of the intent is essential to conviction."
Patterson v. Commonwealth,
215 Va. 698, 699,
213 S.E.2d 752, 753 (1975). Although the Commonwealth may prove by circumstantial evidence the specific intent to steal, that proof must be, as in all criminal cases, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Jones v. Commonwealth,
3 Va. App. 295, 299,
349 S.E.2d 414, 417 (1986).
Maynard v. Commonwealth,
11 Va. App. 437, 452, 399 S.E.2d 635, 644 (1990) (
en banc).
Where unlawful entry is made onto business premises, "the presumption is that the entry was made for an unlawful purpose[.]" Ridley v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 834, 836, 252 S.E.2d 313, 314 (1979). "In the absence of evidence showing a contrary intent, the trier of fact may infer that a defendant's unauthorized presence in a house or building of another . . . was with intent to commit larceny." Id. at 837, 252 S.E.2d at 314. However, no inference of larcenous intent is permissible where evidence demonstrates the defendant intended to commit a different crime when he broke into the building. See Maynard, 11 Va. App. at 452, 399 S.E.2d at 644 (where an intruder committed rape and sodomy after entering the home, and the evidence did not prove the defendant also committed larceny, the circumstantial evidence did not "support an inference beyond a reasonable doubt that the intruder entered the victim's dwelling with the intent to commit larceny").
The evidence proved Vincent committed acts of vandalism at the Ross Store. He damaged the glass door of the store by throwing a metal pole through it. Once inside, Vincent pushed a shopping cart into a rack of clothes and dispersed merchandise, causing further property damage to the business. "[A] person is presumed to intend the immediate, direct, and necessary consequences of his voluntary act." Nobles v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 548, 551, 238 S.E.2d 808, 810 (1977).
Moreover, the Commonwealth did not prove Vincent committed a larceny. Inside the store, Vincent did not tamper with the cash registers. The security cameras did not record Vincent concealing any property on his person and, when he was arrested on the day of the incident, he did not have any property belonging to the Ross Store in his possession, although the store's inventory included small items that could be easily concealed. Finally, the evidence failed to show that any merchandise was missing from the store after the incident. In light of this evidence, which indicated that Vincent's purpose was to vandalize the store, it was impermissible for the trial court to infer that Vincent entered the store with larcenous intent. See Maynard, 11 Va. App. at 452, 399 S.E.2d at 644. Therefore, the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Vincent possessed the intent to commit larceny, a necessary element of the offense.
The circumstances of this case are unlike those in Hucks v. Commonwealth, 33 Va. App. 168, 173, 531 S.E.2d 658, 660 (2000), where the evidence proved the defendant entered an office building after hours without authorization. The evidence proved Hucks possessed a latex glove that would prevent his fingerprints from being detected and a screwdriver altered for use as a burglary tool. In addition, other similar screwdrivers were found in his car. The evidence in Hucks tended to prove the defendant intended to commit larceny but was prevented from accomplishing his purpose by discovery. The facts and circumstances in the present case, however, tended to prove Vincent declined the opportunity to commit larceny. He vandalized the store, left the cash drawers undisturbed, and voluntarily exited the store without apprehension and without indication he had taken any items. When arrested, he was lying intoxicated next to a trash dumpster.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we find the evidence was insufficient to prove appellant possessed the intent to commit larceny inside the Ross Store. Accordingly, we reverse appellant's conviction of statutory burglary and dismiss the indictment against him.
Reversed and dismissed.