Credible testimony supports forgery convictions

Where two police officers gave credible testimony that the appellant was the person they stopped for moving violations, his convictions for identity theft and forging public documents are affirmed.

Traffic stops

In August 2019, Officer Dubus stopped a vehicle going the wrong way on a one-way street. The driver identified himself as Dominique Long and gave Dubus a date of birth. Dubus could not find any records using the driver’s name and birthday but eventually found records for Long “with a slightly different date of birth.

He compared the driver with a picture of Long and concluded that the driver was Long. Dubus issued four summons. The driver signed each of them using Long’s name. The traffic stop lasted about 25 minutes.

Later in August, Officer Watkins stopped a driver for speeding. Watkins spoke with the driver, who identified himself as Dominique Long and gave Watkins Long’s Social Security number.

Watkins found a written description of Long and concluded Long was the driver. Watkins issued the driver and witnessed the driver signing them using Long’ name.

Later, the real Dominique Long came to the police station and said he received summons for the two traffic stops. However, Long said he did not drive and denied that he was the driver that  Dubus and Long stopped.

Detective Freeman, who was investigating the matter. He learned that appellant Rontrelll Banks had been charged in 2015 with falsely using Long’s identity. Freeman compared body cam footage with a known photograph of Banks and conclude that Banks was the driver in the two August traffic stops.

Banks was arrested and charged with eight counts of forging public records and two counts of identity theft.

At trial, both Dubus and Watkins identified Banks as the driver. After reviewing their body cam images, they confirmed that Banks was the driver.

Banks moved to strike after the commonwealth concluded its case. Banks attacked Dubus and Watkins’ credibility. He pointed out that each of them had concluded that the driver was Long.

The trial court denied Banks’ motion and convicted on all count.

Credibility

Banks argues on appeal there was insufficient evidence to identify him as the driver. “Specifically, Banks takes issue with the reliability of eyewitness identifications generally and with the reliability of the officers’ testimony in this case specifically. …

“In this case, the officers present at the scene both testified that Banks was the driver who had falsely used Dominique Long’s name during the August traffic stops. Banks does not argue that either officer’s testimony was inadmissible.

“Instead, he contends that their testimony was unreliable, and, therefore, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he was the driver involved in the traffic stops.

“However, as the Supreme Court has been clear, ‘when a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, “[i]f there is evidence to sustain the verdict, this Court should not overrule it and substitute its own judgment, even if its opinion might differ from that of the factfinder.’ …

“In-court testimony identifying the defendant as the perpetrator – if believed by the factfinder – is sufficient evidence to prove the identity of the perpetrator. … Furthermore, ‘the credibility of witnesses and the weight accorded their testimony are matters solely for the fact finder who has the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses.’ …

“The trial judge specifically found that both Officer Dubus and Officer Watkins ‘were very credible’ in their testimony identifying Banks in court.”

In addition, there was photographic evidence that Banks was the driver. Detective Freeman, who conducted an independent review of the body cam evidence, also concluded that Bank was the driver.

Affirmed.

Banks v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0619-21-1, May 10, 2022. CAV (Beales) from the Circuit Court of the City of Norfolk (Migliozzi). Daymen Robinson for appellant. Timothy J. Huffstutter for appellee. VLW 022-7-130, 6 pp. Unpublished opinion.