Scott v. Commonwealth, 789 S.E.2d 608

Victim discovered Artavius Scott climbing through her bedroom window; he threatened her with a handgun and took her purse without consent. The purse contained credit cards among other items.
The next day the victim recovered the purse; cash and cigarettes were missing but the credit cards remained; she had already canceled the accounts and did not know if they had been used.
Scott was convicted in Richmond Circuit Court of multiple offenses, including credit card theft under Code § 18.2-192(1)(a). He appealed only the credit card theft conviction.
The sole legal issue on appeal was whether § 18.2-192(1)(a) requires proof of specific intent to use, sell, or transfer a card for all ways the statute defines credit card theft.
The Commonwealth argued the statute creates two separate offenses (taking without consent; and receiving a stolen card with specific intent), while Scott argued the specific intent language modifies the entire subsection.
The Court adhered to its prior decision in Meeks, holding the first prong (taking/obtaining/withholding without consent) is a general intent offense completed by the unlawful taking and does not require proof of specific intent to use, sell, or transfer.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 18.2-192(1)(a) requires proof of specific intent to use, sell, or transfer for all conduct it proscribes	Commonwealth: statute describes two distinct offenses; the specific intent phrase applies only to the second (receiving) prong	Scott: the specific intent phrase modifies the entire subsection, so Commonwealth must prove specific intent for any conviction under the statute	The specific intent requirement applies only to the second prong (receiving a stolen card with intent). The first prong (taking/obtaining/withholding without consent) is a general intent crime completed by unlawful taking.

Baldwin v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 276 (appellate-review principles cited)
Warrington v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 365 (de novo review of statutory-construction questions)
Newberry Station Homeowners Ass’n v. Board of Supervisors, 285 Va. 604 (last-antecedent rule of construction explained)
Wilder v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 145 (prior interpretation of predecessor statute; indictment sufficiency issue)
Meeks v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 798 (holding § 18.2-192(1)(a) encompasses two distinct offenses; first prong completed upon unlawful taking)
Cheatham v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. 286 (earlier contrary precedent abrogated by Meeks)