The caption
The parties exactly as the court lists them—not a claim about the merits.
State court of last resort · ST-VA-SC
Finney v. Commonwealth
No. 080440Supreme Court of Virginia
080440 Finney v. Commonwealth 01/16/2009 In a prosecution for breaking and entering in violation of Code § 18.2-91, the circumstantial evidence did not justify the inference that the breaking and entering of a…
Clerk language is kept verbatim. Vote Files does not infer who is winning.The movement
Orders, motions, and filings in the clerk's own words and sequence.
The proof
The official docket and available court documents attached to every update.
080440 Finney v. Commonwealth 01/16/2009 In a prosecution for breaking and entering in violation of Code § 18.2-91, the circumsta…
- Court
- Supreme Court of Virginia
- First seen
- Oct 4, 2026
- Last entry
- Jan 16, 2009
No bill or executive-order citation is attached to this file.
Official docket
Case timeline
The clerk's wording is shown verbatim and linked to the court's own document page where available.
Docket entry
080440 Finney v. Commonwealth 01/16/2009 In a prosecution for breaking and entering in violation of Code § 18.2-91, the circumstantial evidence did not justify the inference that the breaking and entering of a shed door and the larceny of tools in the shed were committed at the same time and by the same person. While the evidence creates a strong suspicion of defendant's guilt, a reasonable hypothesis exists that another individual may have committed the breaking and that the defendant subsequently entered the shed without the necessity of a breaking to do so. Accordingly, the Commonwealth did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was required to use any physical force to e…
Open court document ↗Documents and links