Opinion
Record No. 2125-93-2
Decided: February 28, 1995
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HANOVER COUNTY, Richard H. C. Taylor, Judge
Edward S. Whitlock, III (Dankos, Gordon Whitlock, P.C., on brief), for appellant.
Marla Lynn Graff, Assistant Attorney General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Present: Judge Benton, Senior Judges Cole and Hodges
Pursuant to Code Sec. 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.
The appellant, Johnny Wesley White, was tried by a jury and convicted of grand larceny and statutory burglary. On appeal, he contends that there was insufficient evidence that the combined value of the stolen goods was two hundred dollars or more to support the grand larceny conviction. We agree and reverse the grand larceny conviction.
At the trial, the Commonwealth produced evidence that, on January 22, 1993, appellant broke into Stephen Hall's house and stole a "telephone, a computer, VCR, remote, and a camera and some lenses." Hall testified that three years before the break-in he paid $369.00 for the VCR and it was in working order when it was stolen. He purchased the camera and lenses for $249.95 sixteen years before the burglary. Hall stated that the camera equipment was kept in a case and had been used only about three or four times over the past ten years.
Connie Davies purchased Hall's stolen telephone from appellant for $20.00. Edward Warner testified that on January 27, 1993, appellant offered to sell him a remote controlled VCR for $50.00 and a "couple of cameras" for $75.00.
Appellant told Investigator Schneider that Kevin Horner had assured appellant that "if [appellant] broke into [Hall's] house . . . and stole a computer . . . [Horner] would give him two hundred dollars for the computer." Appellant also told Schneider that he sold the VCR and "traded" the camera, but no dollar amounts were given.
"Proof that an article has some value is sufficient to warrant a conviction of petit larceny, but where the value of the thing stolen determines the grade of the offense, the value must be alleged and the Commonwealth must prove the value to be the statutory amount." Wright v. Commonwealth, 196 Va. 132, 139, 82 S.E.2d 603, 607 (1954). See also Walls v. Commonwealth, 248 Va. 480, 450 S.E.2d 363 (1994); Knight v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 85, 88, 300 S.E.2d 600, 601 (1983) (Commonwealth's burden to prove value beyond a reasonable doubt). The value of an object of larceny is the fair market value at the time and place of the theft. See Berryman v. Moore, 619 F. Supp. 853, 856 (E.D. Va. 1985).
Although there was evidence regarding the purchase price of the VCR and camera equipment, there was no evidence from the owner or persons familiar with the goods of their current values reflecting the effects of age and wear and tear on their values. See Walls, 248 Va. at 483, 450 S.E.2d at 365 (recently hired employee had insufficient knowledge of stolen item to render competent opinion on its value); Dunn v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 704, 284 S.E.2d 792 (1981) (despite evidence of its purchase price, no showing made of ten year-old typewriter's current value). Also, in spite of evidence of appellant's asking prices or prices that potential buyers agreed or offered to pay for the VCR, camera equipment, and computer, the potential buyers never bought those items. Moreover, there was no evidence of the computer's purchase price or its current condition.
In conclusion, we find that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the stolen items was equal to or over two hundred dollars. Accordingly, we reverse and vacate the grand larceny conviction. The case will be remanded to the circuit court for a new trial on a charge of petit larceny if the Commonwealth be so advised.
Reversed and remanded.