Raymeka Monique White v. Commonwealth of Virginia
68 Va. App. 241
| Va. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Victim (A.C.) suffered severe brain injury from West Nile virus/encephalitis in 2003 and required around-the-clock in-home care since 2004.
- M.B., the victim’s sister‑in‑law, held power of attorney, managed the victim’s finances, and retained receipts for monitoring.
- In 2014 A Heart for You placed White as a caregiver; M.B. gave White the victim’s debit card and PIN and instructed White to use the card only for the victim’s expenses and to return it to the victim’s purse after transactions.
- Two $300 ATM cash withdrawals occurred in May 2014 without receipts; surveillance footage showed White making one withdrawal.
- White suggested another caregiver, Peggy Robinson, impersonated her; only White and Robinson had access to the card.
- White was convicted in circuit court of financial exploitation of a mentally incapacitated person (Va. Code § 18.2‑178.1) and credit card fraud (Va. Code § 18.2‑195) and appealed, arguing the Commonwealth failed to prove (1) the victim met the statute’s definition of mental incapacity and (2) White possessed/used the card without the cardholder’s consent. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (White) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the victim was "mentally incapacitated" under Va. Code § 18.2‑178.1 (i.e., unable to understand the nature or consequences of the transaction) | Evidence of brain injury, severe cognitive/functional deficits, need for caretaker and financial management showed she could not understand nature/consequences of ATM withdrawals | Victim’s general deficits insufficient to satisfy the statute’s specific definition; statute requires inability to understand the particular transaction | Court affirmed: evidence supported that victim could not understand nature/consequences of the ATM withdrawals; mental incapacity proven under the statute |
| Whether White possessed/used the debit card without the cardholder’s consent, supporting credit card fraud under Va. Code §§ 18.2‑192 & 18.2‑195 | Testimony showed White’s job was limited to assisting purchases and returning the card; surveillance and lack of receipts supported inference White wrongfully retained/used the card at ATMs | White argued she had employment authority to use the card and the victim may have consented (due to poor memory) | Court affirmed: reasonable factfinder could infer White’s possession at the ATMs was unauthorized and reject hypothesis of consent/innocence |
Key Cases Cited
- Molina v. Commonwealth, 272 Va. 666, 636 S.E.2d 470 (2006) (standard for sufficiency review—view evidence in light most favorable to Commonwealth)
- Saponaro v. Commonwealth, 51 Va. App. 149, 655 S.E.2d 49 (2008) (distinguishes lawful possession of a card with consent from wrongful possession)
- Kovalaske v. Commonwealth, 56 Va. App. 224, 692 S.E.2d 641 (2010) (misuse while card in wrongful possession supports fraud conviction)
- Moseley v. Commonwealth, 293 Va. 455, 799 S.E.2d 683 (2017) (Commonwealth entitled to benefit of reasonable inferences from evidence)
- Vasquez v. Commonwealth, 291 Va. 232, 781 S.E.2d 920 (2016) (standard for rejecting reasonable hypotheses of innocence)