Case ID: va-cir_22/html/0048-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By JUDGE ROSEMARIE ANNUNZIATA", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY
    Commonwealth of Virginia v. Carlene M. McWhirt
    August 27, 1990
    Case Nos. (Criminal) 66044, 66045, 66046
   By JUDGE ROSEMARIE ANNUNZIATA

The matter before the Court is defendant’s motion for a Bill of Particulars. The defendant is charged with embezzlement in violation of Va. Code § 18.2-111, under three separate indictments. Each indictment joins several distinct acts of embezzlement allegedly committed by the defendant within a six-month period. Joinder is permitted under Va. Code § 19.2-223. A motion for a bill of particulars should not be granted if the indictment sufficiently informs defendant of the charge to be tried. Harris v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 424 (1989). The case law is sparse on the specific issue raised by a prosecutorial choice to join a number of separate defalcations. However, based on a review of the indictments, the arguments of counsel, the relevant case law, and considering the defendant’s ability to prepare for trial in the absence of a more particularized statement, it is my view that the defendant’s motion should be granted. Casper v. Danville, 160 Va. 929 (1933); Challenor v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 789, 792-93 (1969); see also Mechling v. Slayton, 361 F. Supp. 770 (E.D. Va. 1973); U.S. v. Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc., 770 F.2d 399 (4th Cir. 1985). The Commonwealth is thus ordered to file a bill particularizing those charges as to which he expects to introduce supporting evidence, including specific dates, time, locations, and dollar values of the embezzlements where such information is available.