COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Willis, Bray and Senior Judge Hodges 

Argued at Alexandria, Virginia 

PATRICK RAYMOND LONG 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 2031-95-4 JUDGE RICHARD S. BRAY 

 MARCH 25, 1997 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY 

William L. Winston, Judge 

 Mark S. Thrash for appellant. 

 H. Elizabeth Shaffer, Assistant Attorney 

General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney 

General, on brief), for appellee. 

 Patrick Raymond Long (defendant) was convicted in a bench 

trial of embezzlement and forgery. On appeal, he contends that 

the evidence was insufficient to establish the requisite venue in 

the trial court for the forgery offense. We agree and reverse 

the conviction. 

 The parties are fully conversant with the record, and this 

memorandum opinion recites only those facts necessary to a 

disposition of the appeal. 

 Under familiar principles of appellate review, we examine 

the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, 

granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible 

therefrom. See Martin v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 438, 443, 358 

S.E.2d 415, 418 (1987). The judgment of a trial court, sitting 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

without a jury, is entitled to the same weight as a jury verdict 

and will be disturbed only if plainly wrong or without evidence 

to support it. See id. 

 Forgery is "the fraudulent making of a false writing, which, 

if genuine, would be apparently of legal efficacy." Muhammad v. 

Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 194, 196, 409 S.E.2d 818, 819 (1991) 

(quoting Terry v. Commonwealth, 87 Va. 672, 674, 13 S.E. 104, 105 

(1891)). A forgery prosecution may take place "in any county or 

city where the writing was forged, or where the same was used or 

passed, or attempted to be used or passed, or deposited or placed 

with another person, firm, association, or corporation either for 

collection or credit . . . ." Code § 19.2-245.1; see Code 

§ 19.2-244. "[T]he burden is upon the Commonwealth to prove 

venue by evidence which is either direct or circumstantial. Such 

evidence must furnish the foundation for a 'strong presumption' 

that the offense was committed within the jurisdiction of the 

court." Pollard v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 723, 725, 261 S.E.2d 

328, 330 (1980) (citation omitted). 

 Here, the evidence established that defendant first obtained 

the subject check, then blank, at Fred's Place, located in 

Arlington County. He subsequently forged and "passed" the 

instrument to his sister, Mary Jacobs, who negotiated it in 

Alexandria. The evidence further proved that Jacobs frequented 

Fred's Place, occasionally cashing checks at the business. 

However, the record abandons to conjecture the actual situs of 
- 3 - 

the forgery. See Pollard, 220 Va. at 726, 261 S.E.2d at 330 

(evidence "wholly inadequate" to provide strong presumption of 

venue when established only "that a City employee possessed 

outside the City stolen City property which originally had been 

assigned to a City vehicle"). 

 Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court erroneously 

concluded that the Commonwealth had established the requisite 

venue in Arlington County and reverse the conviction. However, 

because the "error did not stem from evidentiary insufficiency 

with respect to [defendant's] guilt or innocence," we do not 

dismiss the indictment, but remand for further proceedings 

consistent with this opinion, if the Commonwealth be so advised. 

Id. (citing Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 15 (1978)). 

 Reversed and remanded.