Margaret Mae Meadors v. Commonwealth of VA

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Willis and Senior Judge Hodges
Argued at Richmond, Virginia
MARGARET MAE MEADORS
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 1428-01-2 JUDGE WILLIAM H. HODGES
MAY 14, 2002
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HENRICO COUNTY
Catherine C. Hammond, Judge
Wayne R. Morgan, Jr., for appellant.
Donald E. Jeffrey, III, Assistant Attorney
General (Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General,
on brief), for appellee.
Appellant was convicted of grand larceny. On appeal, she
contends the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction
because the Commonwealth failed to exclude a reasonable hypothesis
of innocence. We agree and reverse.
"On appeal, 'we review the evidence in the light most
favorable to the Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable
inferences fairly deducible therefrom.'" Archer v.
Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 1, 11, 492 S.E.2d 826, 831 (1997)
(citation omitted).
So viewed, the evidence proved that appellant was the manager
at All-Systems Satellite Distribution ("All-Systems") in January
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
2000. Ronald Grant, an owner of a satellite retailer, testified
that he made cash purchases from All-Systems for $532 and $857 on
January 3 and January 27, 2000, respectively. Grant could not
remember whether he paid appellant or another employee named
Jason, who was the salesperson at All-Systems.
Vernon Unser was the manager for All-Systems from January
1992 to February 1998 and returned as manager on February 7, 2000.
Unser testified as to the accounting practices of the business.
Unser explained that when customers paid in cash, an invoice was
generated and the amount of cash was recorded on the daily cash
sheet. The money was normally deposited in the bank that night or
the following business day. The deposits were logged in the
company's check register along with the corresponding invoice
number. The daily cash sheet for January 27, 2000, was in
appellant's handwriting and showed that no cash was received on
that day. The daily cash sheet for the next day did not include
the $857 transaction from Grant, although three other transactions
were recorded. One entry was in appellant's handwriting and two
entries were in Jason's handwriting; however, appellant initialed
one of the entries by Jason. Unser examined the check register
from January 24 to February 1, 2000, and the $857 was never
deposited. Unser also testified that the check register for
January 17, 2000, showed a deposit of three dollars, which
referred to the invoice number of Grant's January 3rd transaction
and stated that it was a partial payment. This entry was in
- 2 -
appellant's handwriting. Unser acknowledged that the thefts
ceased after Jason left his employment with All-Systems. Unser
also acknowledged that on prior occasions he had completed an
invoice for a transaction, but that another person would later
finalize the transaction. Richard Logiudice, a co-owner of
All-Systems, testified that a partial payment of three dollars
"would almost be an impossibility."
"Where the evidence is entirely circumstantial, all necessary
circumstances proved must be consistent with guilt and
inconsistent with innocence and must exclude every reasonable
hypothesis of innocence." Bishop v. Commonwealth, 227 Va. 164,
169, 313 S.E.2d 390, 393 (1984). "[A] suspicion of guilt,
however strong, or even a probability of guilt, is insufficient
to support a criminal conviction." Id. at 170, 313 S.E.2d at
393. "Whether a hypothesis of innocence is reasonable is a
question of fact . . . and a finding by the trial court is
binding on appeal unless plainly wrong." Grier v. Commonwealth,
35 Va. App. 560, 571, 546 S.E.2d 743, 748 (2001).
We agree with appellant that the Commonwealth failed to
exclude her reasonable hypothesis of innocence that Jason took the
money. The evidence proved that Grant was unable to remember
whether appellant or Jason completed his transaction and that the
thefts ceased after Jason left his employment with All-Systems.
The evidence also proved that Jason had access to the money and
made entries on the daily cash sheet, which were not initialed by
- 3 -
appellant. Appellant did complete the invoices for the
transactions; however, Unser acknowledged that on prior occasions
he had completed an invoice for a transaction, but that another
person would later finalize the transaction. Appellant did record
a partial payment in the check register for an invoice which
corresponded to one of Grant's purchases; however, there were
several other partial payments also recorded in the check
register. The Commonwealth failed to exclude the reasonable
hypothesis of innocence that another person took the money.
Accordingly, appellant's conviction for grand larceny is reversed
and dismissed.
Reversed and dismissed.
- 4 -