Moore v. Commonwealth
59 Va. App. 795
| Va. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Moore was indicted in Stafford County for one count of issuing multiple worthless checks and three counts of worthless checks under Code § 18.2-181.1 and 18.2-181, later additional indictments included false pretenses, forged notes, forgery, and third offense larceny tied to counterfeit MoneyGram orders.
- Commonwealth sought nolle prosequi for several indictments prior to trial, and then to proceed on three separate worthless check charges instead of one multiple-check indictment; the trial court granted these motions over Moore’s objections.
- During trial, three counterfeit MoneyGram money orders payable to Moore (with purchaser listed as Don King) were deposited; Apple Federal Credit Union verified deposits and withdrawals totaling several hundred dollars from Moore’s account.
- Security footage identified Moore depositing the money orders; Moore and others provided conflicting explanations about employment and the source of funds, but Moore admitted using funds to pay fines and buy a car.
- Moore testified she discovered an online opportunity that led to obtaining checks, but she admitted deposits and withdrawals with use of the money orders; the jury convicted Moore on three counts of uttering worthless checks, three counts of obtaining money by false pretenses, and three counts of uttering a forged writing.
- The court affirmed the trial court’s judgments on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether single larceny doctrine applies to three money-order withdrawals | Moore contends the three charges should be struck as one | Commonwealth argues no preservation issue and evidence supports three distinct acts | Single larceny doctrine not applicable; convictions affirmed |
| Whether nolle prosequi of issuing multiple checks was proper without showing good cause | Moore asserts improper dismissal of one indictment to pursue three | Commonwealth had discretion to elect under which statute to proceed | Good cause existed as a matter of law to grant nolle prosequi the multiple-check indictment |
| Whether the three worthless-check charges should be reduced under single larceny doctrine | Moore argues for single conviction under ends of justice exception | Prosecutorial charging decision not reviewable for tactical choices | Rule 5A:18 preserved; ends of justice exception not used; convictions stand |
| Whether single larceny doctrine applies to uttering forged checks | Millard-like extension should apply to uttering | Uttering forged checks is not a larceny; doctrine limited to larceny/related offenses | Doctrines not extended to uttering; no change to verdicts |
Key Cases Cited
- Acey v. Commonwealth, 29 Va. App. 240, 511 S.E.2d 429 (1999) (single larceny doctrine analysis; dissection of elements in multiple withdrawals)
- West v. Commonwealth, 125 Va. 747, 99 S.E. 654 (1919) (origin of the single larceny doctrine; sequential acts may be a single larceny under a single impulse)
- Bragg v. Commonwealth, 42 Va. App. 607, 593 S.E.2d 558 (2004) (embezlement; series of impulses; enduring intent to embezzle over time)
- Smith v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 37, 434 S.E.2d 914 (1993) (prosecutorial election between parallel statutes; discretion to charge)
- Duggins v. Commonwealth, 59 Va. App. 785, 722 S.E.2d 663 (2012) (limits on reviewing prosecutors’ nolle prosequi decisions; good cause standard)