Commonwealth v. Moseley, 799 S.E.2d 683

Background

Moseley was tried in Hampton Circuit Court on two counts of breaking and entering (Code § 18.2-91) and two counts of grand larceny (Code § 18.2-95) and convicted after a bench trial; sentence 40 years with 34 suspended.
Winsleys' home was burglarized on June 3, 2013; rare coins and paper currency were stolen. Captain Canny saw Moseley near that residence around the time of the burglary.
On June 17, 2013, the Ellises' home was burglarized. Moseley was stopped that day after matching a suspect description and was carrying heavy knit gloves. He was taken into custody.
That night a white 1990 Crown Victoria Moseley frequently drove was towed after being found with windows down and keys inside; the vehicle contained a bag of jewelry, marijuana, and identification cards bearing Moseley’s name.
Items recovered from the Crown Victoria matched property stolen from both burglaries; police found Moseley’s electric bill and ID among the mixed contents of the console.
The Circuit Court denied Moseley’s motions to strike and to set aside the verdicts. The Court of Appeals reversed all convictions as unsupported by sufficient evidence; the Supreme Court of Virginia granted review.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to prove Moseley was the criminal agent for burglaries and larcenies	Combined circumstantial facts (presence near Winsleys, matching description at Ellis burglary, possession of gloves, routine use of the Crown Victoria, identification and stolen property commingled in vehicle) permit reasonable inferences of guilt	Evidence merely suspicious; no proof of exclusive dominion or recent possession of stolen goods by Moseley; someone else could have placed items in the car	The Supreme Court reversed Court of Appeals: a rational factfinder could, viewing all evidence together, reject hypotheses of innocence and find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
Applicability of the larceny/burglary inferences (exclusive possession inference)	Commonwealth relied on circumstantial inferences including recent possession and commingling of ID with stolen items to link Moseley to crimes	Moseley argued the evidence did not show exclusive possession of stolen items, so the inferences should not apply	The majority assumed, without deciding, that exclusive-possession inferences might not apply but held remaining total evidence still sufficient to sustain convictions
Standard of appellate review for circumstantial evidence	Appellate court should view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth and consider cumulative inferences; must ask whether any rational trier of fact could convict	Court of Appeals erred by isolating and minimizing individual items of evidence and not deferring to factfinder	Held: apply Jackson/Williams standard; Court of Appeals erred in fragmented analysis and failed to defer to trial court findings
Weight to give reasonable-hypothesis-of-innocence arguments	Factfinder decides which reasonable inferences to draw and may reject defendant’s hypotheses if unreasonable given whole record	Defendant’s hypothesis that someone else placed items in car and Moseley had innocent reasons for presence should preclude conviction	Held: the circuit court reasonably rejected those innocence hypotheses based on the totality of evidence

Key Cases Cited

Williams v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 190 (describing Jackson standard of review on sufficiency)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishing standard whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
Hudson v. Commonwealth, 265 Va. 505 (explaining appellate review of hypotheses of innocence and totality-of-evidence approach)
Vasquez v. Commonwealth, 291 Va. 232 (bench-trial sufficiency principles apply same as jury trials)
Muhammad v. Commonwealth, 269 Va. 451 (combined circumstantial evidence may lead reasonable mind to conclusion)
Wright v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 386 (reasonable-hypothesis principle and corpus delicti / criminal agency requirements)
Smith v. Commonwealth, 259 Va. 780 (all necessary circumstances must be consistent with guilt in circumstantial cases)
LaPrade v. Commonwealth, 191 Va. 410 (formulation of reasonable-hypothesis rule)