Nathaniel Howard Moone, III v. Commonwealth of Virginia
1750164
| Va. Ct. App. | Nov 14, 2017Background
- Appellant Nathaniel H. Moone III was convicted by a jury of attempted robbery after entering a bank masked, wearing gloves, carrying a backpack, and passing a note that read "teller, both drawers, 60 seconds."
- When the teller did not immediately comply, appellant said, "Keep quiet, it’s a robbery." The teller testified she was shaken and dropped a key while trying to open a drawer; video of the encounter was shown to the jury.
- At trial appellant moved to strike the evidence solely on the ground that the Commonwealth had not proven he was the perpetrator; he did not move to strike on the ground that force or intimidation was lacking.
- Appellant argued lack of force/intimidation only in closing argument to the jury, not in a formal pre-verdict motion.
- On appeal appellant contended the note and brief statement were insufficient to show attempted robbery was by "force or intimidation," but the Commonwealth and the Court relied on preservation rules.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding appellant forfeited the specific sufficiency challenge by failing to raise it to the trial court and declining to apply Rule 5A:18 exceptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proved attempted robbery was by "force or intimidation" | Moone: note and single statement did not put teller in fear of bodily harm; fear was incidental, not produced by his words/conduct | Commonwealth: combined conduct (masked entry, note, verbal command) was reasonably calculated to produce fear and supported robbery-by-intimidation | Forfeited — appellant did not preserve this specific sufficiency argument at trial; appellate review barred by Rule 5A:18 |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelly v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 250 (statement of appellate sufficiency standard)
- Wells v. Commonwealth, 65 Va. App. 722 (review evidence in light most favorable to Commonwealth)
- Campbell v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 476 (motion to strike is required in jury trial to obtain trial-court ruling on sufficiency)
- Edwards v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 752 (Rule 5A:18 requires specific arguments at trial to preserve issues)
- Buck v. Commonwealth, 247 Va. 449 (same principle applying preservation rule)
- Scialdone v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 422 (purpose of preservation rule to allow trial court to rule intelligently)
- Pressley v. Commonwealth, 54 Va. App. 380 (definition and scope of "intimidation" for robbery statutes)