Speller v. Commonwealth (P)

To obtain a conviction for grand larceny of a firearm, the Commonwealth need not present specific testimony that the object was designed, made, and intended to fire or expel a projectile by means of an explosion. Whether the object is a firearm that was designed, made, and intended to fire or expel a projectile by means of an explosion is a question of fact that may be proven by circumstantial evidence.

Here, that evidence sufficiently demonstrated that the instruments the defendant took were designed, made, and intended to fire or expel a projectile by means of an explosion. Victim 2 testified that the handgun stolen from him was a “Springfield Armory XD .40,” which was loaded with ammunition. He also testified that he’d fired the gun several months before and that it was “operational.” The Commonwealth also introduced into evidence pictures of the stolen firearms.

A rational trier of fact could have found that the instruments stolen in this case were firearms designed, made, and intended to fire or expel a projectile by means of an explosion.

Affirmed.

Speller v. Commonwealth (P), No. 1826-17-1, Nov. 6, 2018. CAV (Petty) from Va. Beach (Croshaw).



Categories: Court of Appeals of Virginia, Opinions, Published

Tags:

%d bloggers like this: