Is Driving a Stolen Rental Car as Good as Renting from Hertz? Not Exactly. Next Time He’ll Try Harder.

In Covil v. Commonwealth, 268 Va. 692, 604 S.E.2d 79 (2004), the defendant was charged with grand larceny under Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-95 after being stopp ed in a stolen, red Oldsmobile Alero rental car. The rental car had been hijacked at gunpoint two days before the traffic stop. T he renter testified at a bench trial that she did not recognize the defendant and had never seen him before.

The defendant claimed that he had asked a friend of his mother to find him a rental car so he and his girlfriend could drive to Kings Dominion “on Saturday.” He said that soon thereafter two unknown men came up to him and gave him the car keys in exchange for $50. He further stated that he did not actually know the way to Kings Dominion and was counting on a friend named “Twin” to drive him there. The defendant said that “Twin” was not available to testify at trial because he was “locked up.” The defendant was arrested on a Tuesday.

Remarkably, the trial judge found the defendant’s testimony less than credible, saying that “it’s got too many holes in it.” The defendant appealed on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence for the trial judge to convict him of grand larceny.

The Virginia Supreme Court stated that, as codified in Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-108, the knowing receipt of stolen goods is larceny, and is grand larceny if the monetary threshold is met. The issue in this case, therefore was whether the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of the defendant’s guilty knowledge.

Besides possession, another factor for the trier of fact to consider is the explanation, or lack thereof, given by the accused. In other words, since possession of stolen goods establishes a prima facie case that the defendant knew they were stolen, the defendant then bears the burden of producing evidence explaining how he innocently acquired possession of the property. It is sufficient for conviction if the trier of fact rejects the defendant’s “hypothesis of innocence” as being unreasonable or not worthy of belief. T he factfinder is allowed to infer from the defendant’s lack of credibility that he made a false explanation to conceal his guilt.

Never Bring A Finger to a Gunfight

Mark Anthony Powell hired a taxi to take him from Norfolk to Portsmouth, where he entered a clothing store. He told a clerk he was looking for a present for his wife and, keeping his left hand in his pocket, selected a pair of pants and brought them to the register. After looking about, M r. Powell told the clerks that he had a gun in his pocket. Moving about nervously, he told the clerks not to move and “won’t nobody get hurt.” He ordered one employee to give him the money from the register and then directed them to the stockroom and made them lie down on the floor.

After the robbery, the victims called the police, and Mr. Powell was apprehended shortly thereafter in his getaway taxi. The stolen money was retrieved, but the police did not find a gun. Among other things, Mr. Powell was convicted under Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-53.1 for possessing a firearm while committing a felony. He appealed, pointing out that he did not use a gun to commit the robbery but only his finger.

In Powell v. Commonwealth, 268 Va. 233, 602 S.E.2d 119 (2004), the Supreme Court upheld his conviction. Since Mr. Powell announced that he had a gun, kept his hand in his pocket ostensibly holding a gun, and acted fidgety all the while, the court held that it was of no moment that the police did not find a gun at the time of his arrest or that no one saw him holding a gun. The court noted that while the police searched the taxi for the gun, there was no evidence in the record that they searched Mr. Powell’s person for a gun at the time of his arrest or during his transport to the police station.

While it seems quite odd that the police would not search the person of a suspected armed robber, the dissent was gracious not to point out the majority’s strange logic and, instead, simply focused on the insufficiency of the evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Powell had a gun. I suppose if he had felt the need to engage in a gunfight with the police upon his apprehension, he could have yelled “bang!” quite loudly.