704 S.E.2d 624
Va. Ct. App.2011Background
- Marsh was convicted in a bench trial of grand larceny under Code § 18.2-95 based on taking Gazda's jewelry with intent to deprive permanently.
- Gazda testified the jewelry, valued about $25,000, was taken after a party and Marsh pawned items to obtain cash.
- Marsh admitted taking and pawning items to cover a short-term cash shortfall and claimed an intent to redeem.
- Detective Buisch returned some pawned items after Marsh failed to redeem all.
- Vienna Jewelry and Estate Buyers records showed loans secured by jewelry with redemption options; Marsh claimed funds from a job would cover redemption.
- The trial court overruled Marsh’s motion to strike the charge and found him guilty; Marsh appealed arguing lack of intent to permanently deprive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was sufficient evidence Marsh intended to permanently deprive Gazda | Commonwealth contends evidence shows intent to steal | Marsh argues no permanent deprivation due to redemption intent | Yes; sufficient evidence Marsh lacked substantial ability to redeem at taking time |
Key Cases Cited
- Carter v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 100 (2010) (intent to return unconditional; larceny requires intent to steal; conditional return not defense)
- Skeeter v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 722 (1977) (larceny elements and intent to deprive; influence on intent inference)
- Britt v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 569 (2008) (definition of larceny and intent to deprive; timing of intent)
- McEachern v. Commonwealth, 52 Va.App. 679 (2008) (trespassory taking with intent to steal; circumstantial evidence and inferences permissible)
- State v. Langford, 483 So.2d 979 (La. 1986) (unconditionality and ability to redeem; conditional intent analysis)