Tiffany Lauren Phillips v. Commonwealth of Virginia
0237161
| Va. Ct. App. | Mar 28, 2017Background
- Tiffany Phillips, a Tinee Giant cashier, processed nine money orders on Aug. 3, 2008 (seven $500 and two $1), totaling $3,502, but no corresponding cash was placed in the safe.
- Surveillance showed Phillips gave the printed money orders to a customer but the customer did not hand Phillips cash; Phillips left the store and did not return.
- Store management later placed a stop on the money orders; the Commonwealth presented no evidence that the orders were ever negotiated or cashed.
- Phillips was convicted after a bench trial of felony embezzlement (Code § 18.2-111) and sentenced, including an order to pay $3,502 restitution.
- On appeal Phillips challenged (1) sufficiency of evidence that the embezzled property had value of $200+ (felony threshold) and (2) the restitution award as unsupported by evidence of actual loss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proved value of embezzled property met $200 felony threshold | Phillips: no statutory presumption ties money‑order face value to actual value; under common law the paper (not its face amount) is the relevant value | Commonwealth: charged under embezzlement statute (not common‑law larceny); money orders are negotiable instruments typically issued only for equivalent cash, supporting value at face amount | Court affirmed conviction: embezzlement statute covers negotiable instruments; face value and sale practice allowed factfinder to conclude value ≥ $200 |
| Whether restitution of $3,502 was supported | Phillips: no evidence anyone suffered actual loss because company stopped the orders and there was no proof they were negotiated; identity of injured party not shown | Commonwealth: sought restitution equal to embezzled amount | Court vacated restitution: evidence did not show actual loss or identify the victim/payee, so restitution was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Owolabi v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 78 (1993) (distinguishes value of card/paper at common law from value of benefits obtained with it)
- Hunt v. Commonwealth, 46 Va. App. 25 (2005) (holding grand larceny charged under Code § 18.2-95 is common‑law larceny and chooses in action are not valued at their redemption amount absent statutory basis)
- Burton v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 274 (2011) (face value of currency is prima facie evidence of its value)
- Walls v. Commonwealth, 248 Va. 480 (1994) (element of value must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt)