Jordan Severance Banks v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 0763211

On Sept. 18, 2020, homeowner Linda Robey returned from work and discovered a blue 1994 Oldsmobile in her driveway and several pieces of jewelry missing from her house.
Robey identified recovered items (jewelry, a red jewelry box, and a 1989 jewelry receipt) as hers; the items were later found in the blue Oldsmobile impounded by police.
Sergeant Leaver found Jordan S. Banks asleep in that Oldsmobile after it was reported stolen; Banks was arrested and the vehicle impounded and searched.
The vehicle’s owner, Shelly Arangio, told police she had lent the car to Banks and that Robey’s jewelry was not in the car when lent; her written statement was stipulated at trial.
Banks told an investigator the items were already in the car (and belonged to Arangio), but at trial testified he briefly let a man named Lewis Kellum use the car and that he later bought tools and jewelry from Kellum for $500—he could not identify specific pieces and gave inconsistent accounts.
The trial court convicted Banks of burglary and grand larceny; he was sentenced to three years. Banks appealed challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to support burglary and grand larceny convictions	Commonwealth: circumstantial evidence established prima facie case—items stolen from Robey, the blue Oldsmobile was observed at the scene, stolen goods recovered from that car, and Banks had exclusive possession of the car	Banks: proffered reasonable hypothesis that Lewis Kellum sold him the jewelry; no fingerprints/DNA or eyewitness tying Banks to the break-in; he paid $500 for the items	Affirmed. Evidence was sufficient; exclusive, close-in-time possession of stolen goods plus Banks’s inconsistent explanations rendered his hypothesis unreasonable and supported convictions

Bright v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 248 (Va. Ct. App. 1987) (possession of recently stolen goods permits inference of larceny)
Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 210 Va. 201 (Va. 1969) (proof of stolen goods in accused’s possession shortly after burglary supports inference of breaking and entering and larceny)
Brown v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 748 (Va. 1973) (once Commonwealth makes prima facie case, defendant must come forward to justify possession of stolen goods)
Moseley v. Commonwealth, 293 Va. 455 (Va. 2017) (reasonable-hypothesis standard restates Commonwealth’s burden beyond a reasonable doubt)
Tucker v. Commonwealth, 18 Va. App. 141 (Va. Ct. App. 1994) (conviction may be supported by circumstantial evidence if it excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence)
Winston v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 746 (Va. Ct. App. 1998) (exclusive possession of stolen vehicle shortly after theft supports inference the possessor was the thief)