COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA PRIVATE

ROMINGER LEGAL

Virginia Legal Research & Resources - VA Legal Resources

Need Legal Help?

LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER

LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS

NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Courts of Virginia. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA PRIVATE

Present: Judges Elder, Bumgardner and Senior Judge Overton
Argued at Richmond, Virginia

DONNIE McNEIL DOTSON
MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
v. Record No. 1410-02-2 JUDGE RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III
OCTOBER 21, 2003
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
Thomas N. Nance, Judge

Gregory W. Franklin, Assistant Public Defender (Office of the
Public Defender, on briefs), for appellant.

Josephine Whalen, Assistant Attorney General (Jerry W. Kilgore,
Attorney General; H. Elizabeth Shaffer, Assistant Attorney General,
on brief), for appellee.

Donnie McNeil Dotson appeals his conviction of attempted breaking and entering, Code
18.2-91. The defendant maintains the evidence failed to prove he attempted to enter the
particular building specified in the indictment. Finding the variance between the charge and the
proof fatal, we reverse the conviction.
The indictment charged the defendant with attempting to break and enter "the
shop/business of K&M Furniture Repair, located at 2216 Hull Street." The evidence included
the testimony given at a pretrial hearing on a motion to suppress. At that hearing, the owner
testified he saw the defendant attempt to break into his place of business. At trial, the owner
testified he owned "S&K Antique" on Hull Street. No other evidence described the property the
defendant attempted to break and enter. The defendant moved to strike the evidence arguing the
Commonwealth failed to prove he attempted to break "into the business of K&M Furniture
Repair." The trial court denied the motion to strike and convicted him of the charge.
An indictment is a written charge against the defendant advising him of the nature and
character of the offense charged against him. Code 19.2-220. "[T]he proof must correspond
with the particular charge." Ronald J. Bacigal, Virginia Criminal Procedure 17-9, at 385 (4th
ed. 1999). In this case, the Commonwealth charged the defendant attempted to break and enter
K&M Furniture Repair; it proved he attempted to break and enter S&K Antique. No evidence
suggested that they were one and the same store, nor that they were located at the address stated
in the indictment, 2216 Hull Street. The evidence did not prove the crime charged, and the
Commonwealth made no effort to have the indictment amended to conform to the evidence, and
no amendment was made.
In Etheridge v. Commonwealth, 210 Va. 328, 329, 171 S.E.2d 190, 191 (1969), the
indictment alleged the defendant shot "'at or into a dwelling house, to-wit: the residence of Edna
Harper located at Route 2, Box 224, Galbush Road, Chesapeake, Virginia.'" The proof at trial
showed the incident occurred at the home of Alberta Riddick. The Court held the variance
between the indictment and the proof was fatal. It was unnecessary to prove who owned the
dwelling, but by making the allegation in the indictment, the Commonwealth "had the burden of
establishing that fact." Id. at 330, 171 S.E.2d at 191.
In Etheridge, the Commonwealth proved the address of the dwelling, but that was not
sufficient when it proved a different owner from the one alleged in the indictment. In this case,
the evidence proved neither the name of the business nor the address alleged in the indictment.
The Commonwealth proved a different offense than the one charged. It proved the defendant
attempted to break into S&K Antique, but it had charged he attempted to break into K&M
Furniture Repair at 2216 Hull Street. "A variance is fatal . . . when the proof is different and
irrelevant to the crime defined in the indictment and is, therefore, insufficient to prove the
commission of the crime charged." Hawks v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 244, 247, 321 S.E.2d
650, 651-52 (1984). The evidence did not prove the charge. Accordingly, we reverse the
defendant's conviction and dismiss the indictment.
Reversed and dismissed.
* Pursuant to Code 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.

"[I]f there shall appear to be any variance between the allegations [in the indictment]
and the evidence offered in proof thereof, the court may permit amendment of such indictment
. . . at any time before the jury returns a verdict . . . provided the amendment does not change the
nature or character of the offense charged." Code 19.2-231. "Amendments which correct
defects . . . in the location . . . of the offense are liberally allowed." Bacigal, supra, 13-7, at
268.

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Virginia Legal Research & Resources - VA Legal Resources
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE