From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dunn v. Commonwealth

Supreme Court of Virginia
Dec 4, 1981
222 Va. 704 (Va. 1981)

Summary

holding that a verdict "based only upon speculation and conjecture . . . cannot be permitted to stand"

Summary of this case from Holloway v. Com

Opinion

44221 Record No. 801766.

December 4, 1981

Present: All the Justices.

The evidence is insufficient to prove the requisite amount under Code Sec 18.2-95 for a conviction of grand larceny.

(1) Criminal Procedure — Larceny, Grand — Statutory Amount (Code Sec. 18.2-95) — Burden of Proof — On Commonwealth to Prove Beyond a Reasonable Doubt that Value of Goods Stolen at Least Equals Amount Fixed by Statute in Definition of Offense.

(2) Criminal Procedure — Larceny, Grand — Statutory Amount (Code Sec. 18.2-95) — Current Value — Evidence — Original Purchase Price may be Admitted With Due Allowance for Elements of Depreciation.

(3) Criminal Procedure — Larceny, Grand — Statutory Amount (Code Sec. 18.2-95) — Evidence — No Evidentiary Basis for Jury Finding as to Value to Sustain Grand Larceny Conviction.

Kenneth Odell Dunn was convicted of grand larceny. The evidence indicated that the stolen property consisted of a framed dollar bill having no special value, $1.20 in coins laminated in clear plastic, and a typewriter purchased new for $150 ten years before the theft. The Commonwealth offered no evidence concerning the current value or the present condition of the typewriter, except to show that it was used three days before it was stolen. On appeal, defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to show that the stolen items had a value of $100 or more as required for a grand larceny conviction under Code Sec. 18.2-95.

1. The burden is upon the Commonwealth in a grand larceny prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the goods stolen equals at least the amount fixed by Code Sec. 18.2-95 which defines the offense.

2. In a grand larceny prosecution the original purchase price of an item may be admitted as evidence of its current value but there must also be due allowance for elements of depreciation.

3. Here there was no evidentiary basis for the finding of the value of the typewriter which was the major item stolen and thus the conviction of grand larceny could have been based only upon speculation and conjecture.

Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County. Hon. F. Ward Harkrader, Jr., judge presiding.

Reversed and remanded.

Fred G. Wood, Jr. (R. Lecky Stone, Jr.; Fred G. Wood, Jr. Associates, on brief), for appellant.

Julia Krebs-Markrich, Assistant Attorney General (Marshall Coleman, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.


Convicted by a jury of grand larceny, the defendant, Kenneth Odell Dunn, was sentenced to serve five years in the penitentiary. On appeal, he contends the evidence was insufficient to show that the stolen items had a value of $100 or more.

The theft in this case occurred December 16, 1979. At its 1980 session, the General Assembly amended Code Sec. 18.2-95 to increase to $200 the amount necessary to constitute grand larceny. Acts 1980, c. 175.

The evidence shows that the stolen property consisted of a framed dollar bill having no special value, $1.20 in coins laminated in clear plastic, and a typewriter purchased new for $150 ten years before the theft. The Commonwealth offered no evidence concerning the current value or the present condition of the typewriter, except to show that it was used three days before it was stolen.

[1-2] In a grand larceny prosecution, the burden is upon the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the goods stolen equals at least the amount fixed by statute in definition of the offense. Wright v. Commonwealth, 196 Va. 132, 139, 82 S.E.2d 603, 607 (1954). While the original purchase price of an item may be admitted as evidence of its current value, there must also be "due allowance for elements of depreciation." Gertler v. Bowling, 202 Va. 213, 215, 116 S.E.2d 268, 270 (1960). Without a showing of the effect of age and wear and tear on the value of an item such as a typewriter, the jury might be misled to believe that original price equals current value.

Here, in addition to the typewriter, the defendant stole items worth $2.20. The jury, therefore, must have found the typewriter was worth at least $97.80. There was no evidentiary basis, however, for this finding. Hence, the verdict could have been based only upon speculation and conjecture and cannot be permitted to stand.

Accordingly, the defendant's conviction of grand larceny will be reversed and set aside, and the case will be remanded for a new trial upon a charge of petit larceny.

Reversed and remanded.


Summaries of

Dunn v. Commonwealth

Supreme Court of Virginia
Dec 4, 1981
222 Va. 704 (Va. 1981)

holding that a verdict "based only upon speculation and conjecture . . . cannot be permitted to stand"

Summary of this case from Holloway v. Com

holding that a verdict "based only upon speculation and conjecture . . . cannot be permitted to stand"

Summary of this case from Corsaro v. Commonwealth

holding that a verdict "based only upon speculation and conjecture . . . cannot be permitted to stand"

Summary of this case from Corsaro v. Commonwealth

holding that the "verdict could have been based only upon speculation and conjecture and cannot be permitted to stand"

Summary of this case from Brandt v. Commonwealth

In Dunn v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 704, 284 S.E.2d 792 (1981) the Virginia Supreme Court reversed a conviction of grand larceny where the only evidence of the value of the stolen item, a ten-year-old television set, was its original cost.

Summary of this case from Berryman v. Moore

In Dunn, the stolen property consisted of $2.20 in cash and a typewriter that had been purchased new ten years earlier for $150. (At the time of the theft, the felony threshold was only $100).

Summary of this case from Bailey v. Commonwealth

In Dunn, evidence that a 10-year-old typewriter originally had been purchased for $150 was held to be insufficient to establish that it was worth the then statutory threshold of $100 when stolen.

Summary of this case from Williams v. Commonwealth

In Dunn, evidence that a 10-year-old typewriter originally had been purchased for $150 was held to be insufficient to establish that it was worth the then statutory threshold of $100 when stolen.

Summary of this case from Williams v. Commonwealth

In Dunn v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 704, 284 S.E.2d 792 (1981), the Supreme Court reversed Dunn's grand larceny conviction finding that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he had stolen items valued at $100 or more.

Summary of this case from Ayres v. Commonwealth

In Dunn v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 704, 70506, 284 S.E.2d 792, 793 (1981) (per curiam) (decided when the statutory threshold for grand larceny was $100), the record simply established that the stolen typewriter had been purchased for only $150ten years before the theft.

Summary of this case from Cairo v. Commonwealth

In Dunn, 222 Va. at 705, 284 S.E.2d at 792, the Virginia Supreme Court found the evidence insufficient to prove that a ten-year-old typewriter bought for $150 met the then-statutory limit of $100 (explaining that there must be "due allowance for elements of depreciation" to show effects of age and wear and tear on the value of an item such as a typewriter).

Summary of this case from Tackett v. Commonwealth

In Dunn, the evidence proved that the accused stole a typewriter which had been purchased ten years previously for $150.

Summary of this case from Lester v. Com
Case details for

Dunn v. Commonwealth

Case Details

Full title:KENNETH ODELL DUNN v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

Court:Supreme Court of Virginia

Date published: Dec 4, 1981

Citations

222 Va. 704 (Va. 1981)
284 S.E.2d 792

Citing Cases

Williams v. Commonwealth

"'While the original purchase price of an item may be admitted as evidence of its current value, there must…

Ayres v. Commonwealth

Thus, when establishing the value of aging technical equipment, it is necessary that some evidence link the…