Appellant was tried for the offenses of murder, armed robbery, and motor vehicle theft. He was convicted of the lesser included offense of theft by taking. Appellant appeals this conviction. We affirm.
1. Contrary to appellant’s assertion, the evidence does not show a seizure pursuant to an illegal warrantless arrest. The evidence adduced at the suppression hearing establishes that appellant’s warrantless arrest and the seizure were unrelated. The sheriff who seized the items in question was permitted inside appellant’s home by a woman identified as appellant’s wife. The items seized were either in plain view or voluntarily given to the sheriff. Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress.
Hall v. State,
2. Assuming without deciding that the trial court should have granted appellant’s motion for directed verdict on the armed robbery charge, appellant shows no harm in the denial of the motion. Had the trial court granted the motion, a prosecution for the offense of theft by taking would nonetheless have been permissible.
Clarke v. State,
3. Appellant shows no error in the trial court’s denial of appellant’s challenge to the array. The instant case is controlled by Code § 24-3009, which provides: "The judges of the superior courts may, in their discretion, hold adjourned terms of said courts in any court within their respective circuits, when the business requires it to close the dockets, and may, in the exercise of a sound discretion, cause new juries to be drawn for the same, or
order the juries drawn for the regular term to give their attendance
*430
upon such adjourned terms. . .”
(Emphasis supplied.) "Under this section, the trial judge may adjourn court and hold the jurors over to the adjourned session.
Harris v. State,
Judgment affirmed.