larceny doctrine in Virginia

2023“The overriding principle behind the single larceny doctrine is to prevent the state from aggregating multiple criminal penalties for a single criminal act.” Id. at 206 (quoting Richardson, 25 Va. App. at 496 ).

2019“The overriding principle behind the single larceny doctrine is to prevent the state from aggregating multiple criminal penalties for a single criminal act.” Id. at 496 .

2025The instruction on the single larceny doctrine Nwoke asserts that the trial court erred by refusing his instruction on the single larceny doctrine.11 He states that “all of the thefts happened pursuant to a single larcenous impulse,” “[d]espite the fact that the larcenies happened over the course of a year . . . .” He concludes that “the larcenies share the same rationale: Nwoke’s desperation to get funds to pay the kidnappers [for] his brother’s kidnapping.” “A ‘series of larcenous acts’ can constitute a ‘single larceny’ if the factfinder reasonably concludes that ‘the several acts [were] don

2023The Single Larceny Doctrine Appellant argues that the trial court erred in convicting him of more than one count of obtaining money by false pretenses, when it should have dismissed three of the four indictments under the single larceny doctrine. - 10 - “A series of larcenous acts will be considered a single count of larceny if they ‘are done pursuant to a single impulse and in execution of a general fraudulent scheme.’” Acey v. Commonwealth, 29 Va. App. 240, 247 (1999) (quoting West v. Commonwealth, 125 Va. 747, 754 (1919)).

2025When deciding whether the single larceny doctrine applies to a particular case, a court must consider “(1) the location of the items taken, (2) the lapse of time between the takings, (3) the general and specific intent of the taker, (4) the number of owners of the items taken and (5) whether intervening events occurred between the takings.” Acey v. Commonwealth, 29 Va. App. 240, 247 (1999).

2023The Single Larceny Doctrine Appellant argues that the trial court erred in convicting him of more than one count of obtaining money by false pretenses, when it should have dismissed three of the four indictments under the single larceny doctrine. - 10 - “A series of larcenous acts will be considered a single count of larceny if they ‘are done pursuant to a single impulse and in execution of a general fraudulent scheme.’” Acey v. Commonwealth, 29 Va. App. 240, 247 (1999) (quoting West v. Commonwealth, 125 Va. 747, 754 (1919)).

2023“The overriding principle behind the single larceny doctrine is to prevent the state from aggregating multiple criminal penalties for a single criminal act.” Id. at 206 (quoting Richardson, 25 Va. App. at 496 ).

2012See generally Millard v. Commonwealth, 34 Va.App. 202, 206 , 539 S.E.2d 84, 86 (2000) (extending the single larceny doctrine to the offense of obtaining money by false pretenses).

2025However, a series of thefts committed under a general scheme is not the controlling factor in determining whether the single larceny doctrine applies.” Bragg v. Commonwealth, 42 Va. App. 607, 612 (2004).

2020We addressed the single larceny doctrine in the context of embezzlement in Bragg v. Commonwealth, 42 Va. App. 607 (2004).

2025See Rule 5A:18; Ohree v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 299, 307-08 (1998) (“The Court of Appeals will not consider an argument on appeal which was not presented to the trial court.”). 10 In light of this conclusion, we do not address Rusiecki’s additional contention that the jury should not have been instructed on the larceny presumption because the mere discovery of the stolen mobile home on the Halifax property was insufficient evidence of his exclusive possession of the mobile home.

2010We “will not consider an argument on appeal which was not presented to the trial court.” Ohree v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 299, 308 , 494 S.E.2d 484, 488 (1998); see Rule 5A:18. -5- The record proved that appellant made two separate and distinct sales of different drugs on the same day.

2025“For the larceny presumption to arise, the Commonwealth must establish that the accused was in exclusive possession of property recently stolen.” Best v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 387, 389 (1981).

1987See Best v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 387, 389, 282 S.E.2d 16, 17 (1981).

2025The instruction on the single larceny doctrine Nwoke asserts that the trial court erred by refusing his instruction on the single larceny doctrine.11 He states that “all of the thefts happened pursuant to a single larcenous impulse,” “[d]espite the fact that the larcenies happened over the course of a year . . . .” He concludes that “the larcenies share the same rationale: Nwoke’s desperation to get funds to pay the kidnappers [for] his brother’s kidnapping.” “A ‘series of larcenous acts’ can constitute a ‘single larceny’ if the factfinder reasonably concludes that ‘the several acts [were] don

2017“When reviewing a fact[-]finder’s decision on [the single larceny doctrine], we apply the same deferential standard of appellate review generally applicable to factual findings.” Dennos v. Commonwealth, 63 Va. App. 139, 148 , 754 S.E.2d 913, 917 (2014).

2020See Moore v. Commonwealth, 59 Va. App. 795, 806 (2012); see also Hines, 39 Va. App. at 755 (stating that “the ‘single larceny doctrine[]’ . . . has no applicability to non-larceny cases”).

2012See also Hines v. Commonwealth, 39 Va.App. 752 , 576 S.E.2d 781 (2003) (noting that the single larceny “doctrine has no applicability to non-larceny cases”).

2014Virginia courts have “only applied [the single larceny doctrine] to those statutory offenses for which we can ascertain no intent by the legislature to abrogate the theory of common law larceny.” Scott v. Commonwealth, 36 Va. App. 276, 280 , 549 S.E.2d 624, 626 (2001) (citing Acey v. Commonwealth, 29 Va. App. 240, 248-49 , 511 S.E.2d 429, 432-33 (1999)).

2014Virginia courts have “only applied [the single larceny doctrine] to those statutory offenses for which we can ascertain no intent by the legislature to abrogate the theory of common law larceny.” Scott v. Commonwealth, 36 Va. App. 276, 280 , 549 S.E.2d 624, 626 (2001) (citing Acey v. Commonwealth, 29 Va. App. 240, 248-49 , 511 S.E.2d 429, 432-33 (1999)).

2010Alexander v. Commonwealth, 90 Va. 809, 810 , 20 S.E. 782, 783 (1894).

2010Alexander v. Commonwealth, 90 Va. 809, 810 , 20 S.E. 782, 783 (1894).

2025See Butcher v. Commonwealth, 298 Va. 392 , 396 (2020) (“[T]he doctrine of judicial restraint dictates that we decide cases ‘on the best and narrowest grounds available.’” (quoting Commonwealth v. White, 293 Va. 411, 419 (2017))). - 17 - 290 Va. at 531 , which holds that “a defendant ‘must be present on his arraignment, when any evidence is given or excluded, when the jury is charged, when the trial court wishes to communicate with the jury in answering questions by [it], and when the jury receives further instructions,’” Remington, 262 Va. at 360 (alteration in original) (quoting Palmer v. Com

2025“One can be in exclusive possession of an item when he jointly possesses it with another,” provided that “the accused was consciously asserting at least a possessory interest in the stolen property or was exercising dominion over the stolen property.” Id.; see also Nelson v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 268, 271 (1991) (noting that to demonstrate exclusive possession “there must be evidence that the defendant exercised dominion and control over the property”).

2025See Butcher v. Commonwealth, 298 Va. 392 , 396 (2020) (“[T]he doctrine of judicial restraint dictates that we decide cases ‘on the best and narrowest grounds available.’” (quoting Commonwealth v. White, 293 Va. 411, 419 (2017))). - 17 - 290 Va. at 531 , which holds that “a defendant ‘must be present on his arraignment, when any evidence is given or excluded, when the jury is charged, when the trial court wishes to communicate with the jury in answering questions by [it], and when the jury receives further instructions,’” Remington, 262 Va. at 360 (alteration in original) (quoting Palmer v. Com

2025See Butcher v. Commonwealth, 298 Va. 392 , 396 (2020) (“[T]he doctrine of judicial restraint dictates that we decide cases ‘on the best and narrowest grounds available.’” (quoting Commonwealth v. White, 293 Va. 411, 419 (2017))). - 17 - 290 Va. at 531 , which holds that “a defendant ‘must be present on his arraignment, when any evidence is given or excluded, when the jury is charged, when the trial court wishes to communicate with the jury in answering questions by [it], and when the jury receives further instructions,’” Remington, 262 Va. at 360 (alteration in original) (quoting Palmer v. Com

2025See Butcher v. Commonwealth, 298 Va. 392 , 396 (2020) (“[T]he doctrine of judicial restraint dictates that we decide cases ‘on the best and narrowest grounds available.’” (quoting Commonwealth v. White, 293 Va. 411, 419 (2017))). - 17 - 290 Va. at 531 , which holds that “a defendant ‘must be present on his arraignment, when any evidence is given or excluded, when the jury is charged, when the trial court wishes to communicate with the jury in answering questions by [it], and when the jury receives further instructions,’” Remington, 262 Va. at 360 (alteration in original) (quoting Palmer v. Com

2020See Moore v. Commonwealth, 59 Va. App. 795, 806 (2012); see also Hines, 39 Va. App. at 755 (stating that “the ‘single larceny doctrine[]’ . . . has no applicability to non-larceny cases”).

2017We presume the fact-finder’s interpretation of the evidence is correct, and we will only reverse if it was “plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.” Ervin v. Commonwealth, 57 Va. App. 495, 503 , 704 S.E.2d 135, 139 (2011) (quoting Viney v. Commonwealth, 269 Va. 296, 299 , 609 S.E.2d 26, 28 (2005)).

2017We presume the fact-finder’s interpretation of the evidence is correct, and we will only reverse if it was “plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.” Ervin v. Commonwealth, 57 Va. App. 495, 503 , 704 S.E.2d 135, 139 (2011) (quoting Viney v. Commonwealth, 269 Va. 296, 299 , 609 S.E.2d 26, 28 (2005)).

2017We presume the fact-finder’s interpretation of the evidence is correct, and we will only reverse if it was “plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.” Ervin v. Commonwealth, 57 Va. App. 495, 503 , 704 S.E.2d 135, 139 (2011) (quoting Viney v. Commonwealth, 269 Va. 296, 299 , 609 S.E.2d 26, 28 (2005)).

2017We presume the fact-finder’s interpretation of the evidence is correct, and we will only reverse if it was “plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.” Ervin v. Commonwealth, 57 Va. App. 495, 503 , 704 S.E.2d 135, 139 (2011) (quoting Viney v. Commonwealth, 269 Va. 296, 299 , 609 S.E.2d 26, 28 (2005)).

2017ANALYSIS A. Single Larceny Doctrine The single larceny doctrine concerns “[w]hether the larceny of multiple items at or about the same time from the same general location constitutes a single larceny or multiple offenses,” and is “an issue that most courts have addressed early in the development of their criminal jurisprudence.” Schwartz v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 61, 72 , 581 S.E.2d 891, 896 (2003) (quoting Richardson v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 491, 495 , 489 S.E.2d 697, 699 (1997) (en banc)).

2017ANALYSIS A. Single Larceny Doctrine The single larceny doctrine concerns “[w]hether the larceny of multiple items at or about the same time from the same general location constitutes a single larceny or multiple offenses,” and is “an issue that most courts have addressed early in the development of their criminal jurisprudence.” Schwartz v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 61, 72 , 581 S.E.2d 891, 896 (2003) (quoting Richardson v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 491, 495 , 489 S.E.2d 697, 699 (1997) (en banc)).

2015Moehring v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 564, 568 , 290 S.E.2d 891, 893 (1982). -4-

2015Moehring v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 564, 568 , 290 S.E.2d 891, 893 (1982). -4-

2014The issue on appeal is “whether the record contains evidence from which any ‘rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Young v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 587, 591 , 659 S.E.2d 308, 310 (2008) (emphasis added) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)).

2014At common law, larceny was defined as “the wrongful or fraudulent taking of personal goods of some intrinsic value, belonging to another, without his assent, and with the intention to deprive the owner thereof permanently.” Dunlavey v. Commonwealth, 184 Va. 521, 524 , 35 S.E.2d 763, 764 (1945) (emphasis added) (citation omitted).

2014At common law, larceny was defined as “the wrongful or fraudulent taking of personal goods of some intrinsic value, belonging to another, without his assent, and with the intention to deprive the owner thereof permanently.” Dunlavey v. Commonwealth, 184 Va. 521, 524 , 35 S.E.2d 763, 764 (1945) (emphasis added) (citation omitted).

2014“When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, the Court will 2 Appellant concedes that she did not proffer a jury instruction setting forth the single larceny doctrine. -4- affirm the judgment unless the judgment is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.” Bolden v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 144, 148 , 654 S.E.2d 584, 586 (2008) (citing Coles v. Commonwealth, 270 Va. 585, 587 , 621 S.E.2d 109, 110 (2005); Burns v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 307, 337 , 541 S.E.2d 872, 892 (2001)).

2014“When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, the Court will 2 Appellant concedes that she did not proffer a jury instruction setting forth the single larceny doctrine. -4- affirm the judgment unless the judgment is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.” Bolden v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 144, 148 , 654 S.E.2d 584, 586 (2008) (citing Coles v. Commonwealth, 270 Va. 585, 587 , 621 S.E.2d 109, 110 (2005); Burns v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 307, 337 , 541 S.E.2d 872, 892 (2001)).

2014“When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, the Court will 2 Appellant concedes that she did not proffer a jury instruction setting forth the single larceny doctrine. -4- affirm the judgment unless the judgment is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.” Bolden v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 144, 148 , 654 S.E.2d 584, 586 (2008) (citing Coles v. Commonwealth, 270 Va. 585, 587 , 621 S.E.2d 109, 110 (2005); Burns v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 307, 337 , 541 S.E.2d 872, 892 (2001)).

2014“When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, the Court will 2 Appellant concedes that she did not proffer a jury instruction setting forth the single larceny doctrine. -4- affirm the judgment unless the judgment is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.” Bolden v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 144, 148 , 654 S.E.2d 584, 586 (2008) (citing Coles v. Commonwealth, 270 Va. 585, 587 , 621 S.E.2d 109, 110 (2005); Burns v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 307, 337 , 541 S.E.2d 872, 892 (2001)).

2014The issue on appeal is “whether the record contains evidence from which any ‘rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Young v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 587, 591 , 659 S.E.2d 308, 310 (2008) (emphasis added) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)).

2014The issue on appeal is “whether the record contains evidence from which any ‘rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Young v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 587, 591 , 659 S.E.2d 308, 310 (2008) (emphasis added) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)).

2014“When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, the Court will 2 Appellant concedes that she did not proffer a jury instruction setting forth the single larceny doctrine. -4- affirm the judgment unless the judgment is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.” Bolden v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 144, 148 , 654 S.E.2d 584, 586 (2008) (citing Coles v. Commonwealth, 270 Va. 585, 587 , 621 S.E.2d 109, 110 (2005); Burns v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 307, 337 , 541 S.E.2d 872, 892 (2001)).

2010For a summary of early English common law cases on the single larceny doctrine, see Woods v. People, 78 N.E. 607, 608-09 (Ill. 1906). - 11 - for grand larceny.

2010For a summary of early English common law cases on the single larceny doctrine, see Woods v. People, 78 N.E. 607, 608-09 (Ill. 1906). - 11 - for grand larceny.