Preview:

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Willis, Annunziata and Overton Argued at Richmond, Virginia DERRELL WILLIAM CHAPPELLE v. Record No. 2161-97-2

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

OPINION BY JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON SEPTEMBER 8, 1998

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND James B. Wilkinson, Judge Susan D. Hansen, Deputy Public Defender (David J. Johnson, Public Defender, on brief), for appellant. Linwood T. Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Derrell William Chappelle (defendant) appeals his convictions of robbery and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. He contends the trial court erred in defining the Specifically, defendant contends the crime

elements of robbery.

of robbery requires proof the victim felt actual fear when being robbed. Because we hold the common law definition of robbery

does not require proof of fear, we affirm. Given defendant's full confession, the facts of this case are remarkably clear. On the evening of April 7, 1997, Michael

Staten sat in his car on Lauralee Drive in Richmond when defendant, wearing a mask to conceal his features, approached Staten's car and tapped on the driver's window. Defendant Staten

displayed a handgun and asked Staten to give him money.

testified he felt no fear when he complied, yet he did not

surrender the money voluntarily. Defendant took the money and a ring Staten wore and fled toward a nearby house. Staten drove his car down the block, He

turned it around, drove back to the house and exited the car.

then began to complain loudly to the occupants of the house that he had been robbed. into the house. Defendant fired two shots in the air and ran

Police later found him hiding in the attic of

the house with the gun, money and ring. At trial, defendant moved to strike the evidence because the Commonwealth had not proven the victim was put in fear. Because

Staten specifically testified he had not felt fear when he surrendered his property, defendant argued he was guilty of larceny, not robbery. The trial court ruled that, "It doesn't He might be

make any difference about him not being in fear. very courageous but he gave up his money."

The trial court found

defendant guilty of robbery and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony and sentenced him to serve eight years. The legal issue at bar is a narrow one: does the crime of

robbery require the prosecution to prove the victim felt actual fear when he was robbed? If so, Staten's plain testimony that he If

was not afraid would prove fatal to the Commonwealth's case. not, then defendant's convictions must stand.

The answer to this

question lies in the Commonwealth's common law tradition. It remains an unshakable maxim that "[r]obbery is a common law crime in this State and while our statute, [Code

Download 2161972.pdf

Virginia Law