Shanessa v. Pittman v. Commonwealth of Virginia
69 Va. App. 632
| Va. Ct. App. | 2019Background
- In October 2015 Pittman borrowed a rental car from acquaintance Darcelle Pettis after Pettis agreed Pittman could drive to a pharmacy and return it.
- Pettis extended the rental after Pittman said she could not return it by the original due time; Pittman nevertheless failed to return the vehicle.
- Pettis reported the car missing; Officer Turner advised Pittman (by phone) there would be no repercussions if she returned the car that day; Pittman did not return it.
- The car was later recovered in New York with approximately $6,643.69 in damage; Enterprise regained possession on November 5, 2015.
- Pittman was indicted for embezzlement under Va. Code §§ 18.2-95 and 18.2-111, convicted after a bench trial, and appealed arguing insufficiency of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Pittman’s Argument | Commonwealth’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a fiduciary relationship is required for embezzlement | Pittman: conviction requires a fiduciary/ confidential relationship | Commonwealth: statute does not require a formal fiduciary relationship; entrustment or delivery suffices | Court: No fiduciary relation required; statute covers property "entrusted or delivered" |
| Whether the rental car was "property entrusted" or otherwise within statute | Pittman: car was not Pettis’s personal property/ no entrustment as required | Commonwealth: Pettis delivered the car to Pittman for a limited purpose; delivery satisfies statute | Court: Need not find entrustment; Pettis "delivered" the vehicle to Pittman, satisfying the statute |
| Whether Pittman had requisite fraudulent intent to deprive owner | Pittman: lacked intent; may have fallen asleep or been unable to return it | Commonwealth: failure to return despite requests and officer warning, plus Pittman’s phone conduct, supports intent | Court: Surrounding circumstances and failure to return demonstrate intent to convert the car |
| Whether Pittman knew rental-period/ intended to deprive Enterprise | Pittman: no evidence she knew rental term or intended to deprive Enterprise | Commonwealth: phone call with Officer Turner and repeated refusals to return show awareness and wrongful intent | Court: Evidence supports that Pittman understood wrongdoing and intended to deprive owner |
Key Cases Cited
- Banks v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 539 (2003) (standard of appellate review of evidence)
- Cirios v. Commonwealth, 7 Va. App. 292 (1988) (weighing evidence in Commonwealth's favor on appeal)
- Walker v. Commonwealth, 272 Va. 511 (2006) (duty to affirm unless judgment is plainly wrong)
- Rooney v. Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 634 (1998) (embezzlement requires entrustment and specific intent)
- Luginbyhl v. Commonwealth, 48 Va. App. 58 (2006) (statutory elements analyzed)
- Leftwich v. Commonwealth, 61 Va. App. 422 (2013) (statute provides alternative grounds via disjunctive "or")
- Bunch v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 423 (1983) (statutory interpretation regarding disjunctive terms)
- Bennett v. Commonwealth, 60 Va. App. 656 (2012) (statutory construction principles)
- Mouberry v. Commonwealth, 39 Va. App. 576 (2003) (statutory interpretation guidance)
- Branch v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 836 (1992) (prefer plain, ordinary meaning of statute)
- Stegall v. Commonwealth, 208 Va. 719 (1968) (failure to return a rental car plus circumstances supports intent to embezzle)
- Webb v. Commonwealth, 204 Va. 24 (1963) (traditional embezzlement formulation)
- Lee v. Commonwealth, 200 Va. 233 (1958) (embezzlement elements discussion)