History
  • No items yet
midpage
723 S.E.2d 633
Va. Ct. App.
2012
Read the full case

Background

  • Austin bought rugs on approval at The Eternal Attic by writing a $676.20 check and taking the rugs; she later stopped payment and never returned the rugs.
  • Co-owner Eastham verified sufficient funds at first, but the store deposited after 24 hours; stop payment occurred before payment cleared.
  • Less than two months later, Austin bought glasses at the Spectacle Shop for $890, again using a check that was stopped.
  • Spectacle Shop deposited the check; stop payment led to nonpayment and return of glasses.
  • Austin gave evasive responses and failed to contact the merchants after being charged; she was on bond for the rugs incident.
  • Convictions: two counts of obtaining money or property by false pretense under Code § 18.2-178 after a bench trial; appeal challenged sufficiency of intent to defraud at time of obtaining property.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether there was sufficient evidence of fraudulent intent at the time of obtaining property. Austin argues no proof of intent to defraud. Commonwealth argues circumstantial evidence shows intent to defraud. Yes; sufficient circumstantial evidence supports intent to defraud at time of taking property.

Key Cases Cited

  • Bourgeois v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 268 (1976) (elements of larceny by false pretenses; proof of intent and use of false pretenses)
  • Riegert v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 511 (1977) (intent may be shown by circumstantial evidence; stop payments inconclusive alone)
  • Orr v. Commonwealth, 229 Va. 298 (1985) (intent to defraud must exist at time of false pretenses; circumstantial proof allowed)
  • Vincent v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 648 (2008) (intent as a state of mind; circumstantial evidence permissible)
  • Parks v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 492 (1980) (circumstantial evidence admissible for proving fraudulent intent)
  • Cunningham v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 399 (1978) (stop-payment timing not always determinative; intent can be proven by surrounding facts)
  • Commonwealth v. McNeal, 282 Va. 16 (2011) (review of sufficiency of evidence; rational jury could convict)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Austin v. Commonwealth
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Virginia
Date Published: Apr 10, 2012
Citations: 723 S.E.2d 633; 60 Va. App. 60; 2012 Va. App. LEXIS 113; 2012 WL 1158738; 1107112
Docket Number: 1107112
Court Abbreviation: Va. Ct. App.
Log In