COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Moon, Judges Baker and Coleman 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

ROBERT STEPHEN REYNOLDS 

v. Record No. 2025-94-2 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

 CHIEF JUDGE NORMAN K. MOON 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA MAY 7, 1996 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GOOCHLAND COUNTY 

D. W. Murphey, Judge Designate 

 Robert S. Reynolds, pro se. 

 Robert B. Beasley, Jr., Assistant Attorney 

General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney 

General, on brief), for appellee. 

 Robert Stephen Reynolds appeals his conviction of grand 

larceny, breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny, and 

trespass on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to 

prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.1 We affirm the 

convictions. 

 At approximately 7:00 p.m. on April 25, 1994, Robert 

Reynolds and his girlfriend, Melanie Brandon, drove to the home 

of Rick and Barbara Smith. They were accompanied by two friends, 

including the driver of the vehicle. Ms. Brandon believed that 

Smith had stolen four oriental rugs from her. 

 

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

designated for publication. 

 1At trial and in his brief, Reynolds also argued that the 

trial court erred in the instruction to the jury on "good faith 

claim of right." On brief and at oral argument, Reynolds 

requested that the Court not reverse the convictions on this 

ground. Therefore, we treat this claim as waived and do not 

consider Reynolds' argument on the jury instruction. 
- 2 - 

 When they arrived, only Mrs. Smith was at home. Mrs. Smith 

met the pair at the front door, and they told her that they had 

come to get the rug that Mr. Smith had stolen from Ms. Brandon. 

Mrs. Smith told them that her husband had purchased the rug from 

Ms. Brandon and asked them to leave or she would call the police. 

 Mrs. Smith then closed the front door, and went to her bedroom 

to call the police. 

 While Mrs. Smith was on the telephone, Reynolds and Ms. 

Brandon opened the door and went into the house. Mrs. Smith 

encountered Reynolds and Brandon in the living room. Ms. Brandon 

pointed out a rug in the baby's bedroom that she said was hers. 

Mrs. Smith called the police a second time, and then left the 

house, went into the yard, and yelled for help. 

 Ms. Brandon left the house after Mrs. Smith did, and went 

back to the car. Ms. Brandon and her two friends drove away. 

Reynolds then left the house carrying the rug, and ran through 

the yard toward the area where the car had been parked. Mrs. 

Smith grabbed hold of the rug. Mrs. Smith went inside with the 

police to open a lockbox, and retrieved a receipt for the 

purchase of a 9 x 12 oriental rug for $250, made out to Mr. Smith 

and signed by Ms. Brandon. At trial, the Commonwealth produced a 

cancelled check made out to Melanie Brandon for the purchase of a 

9 x 12 Chinese rug. 

 Ms. Brandon testified that she had told Reynolds on several 

occasions that Mr. Smith had stolen rugs that she had entrusted 

to him for safekeeping. However, Ms. Brandon also testified that 
- 3 - 

she did not intend to take anything from the Smiths' home. Ms. 

Brandon testified that after they had spoken with Mrs. Smith at 

the front door she asked Reynolds not to go in, that she would 

rather take care of it a different way. Ms. Brandon stated that 

she went into the house only in order to persuade Reynolds to 

leave. 

 Reynolds acknowledged that Ms. Brandon urged him not to take 

the rug. He insisted on taking it because he thought Ms. Brandon 

had the right to do so. Reynolds also testified that he had a 

"connection" with Ms. Brandon's property because he had been 

supporting her and she told him "what's mine is yours." 

 The officers who arrived at the scene testified that 

Reynolds told them he was there to take possession of something 

that belonged to a friend of his. Reynolds did not tell either 

officer that the rug was his or partially his. 

 On appeal, we review the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable 

inferences fairly deducible therefrom. Higginbotham v. 

Commonwealth, 216 Va. 349, 352, 218 S.E.2d 534, 537 (1975). 

 Larceny is 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. Bryant v. Commonwealth, 248 Va. 179, 183, 445 

S.E.2d 667, 670 (1994). If, however, the property is taken 

"under a bona fide claim of right, as under a claim of ownership 

or in a bona fide attempt to enforce payment of a debt," criminal 
- 4 - 

intent is lacking and there can be no larceny. Pierce v. 

Commonwealth, 205 Va. 528, 533, 138 S.E.2d 28, 32 (1964). Even 

if the claimant's belief that he has a right to take the property 

is unreasonable, it constitutes a bona fide claim of right so 

long as the belief was made honestly and in good faith. See 50 

Am.Jur.2D Larceny § 46 (1995); see also Whitlow v. Commonwealth, 

184 Va. 910, 918, 37 S.E.2d 18, 21 (1946). 

 Reynolds argues that the Commonwealth failed to prove intent 

to steal because he honestly believed that the rug belonged to 

Ms. Brandon and he was acting as her agent in recovering it. He 

also claims to be a part owner of the property. 

 The doctrine of bona fide claim of right applies where the 

claimant is acting on behalf of another, and where he believes 

himself to be part owner of the property taken. See 50 Am.Jur.2D 

Larceny § 46. Construing the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the Commonwealth, it supports the inference that 

Reynolds knew he was not acting as Ms. Brandon's agent because 

she asked him not to enter the house or take the rug. As for 

Reynolds' claim of part ownership, his statements at the scene 

reflect only his belief that the rug belonged to Ms. Brandon, 

thus leading to a permissible inference that he created this 

claim after the fact. Thus, the evidence was sufficient to 

convict Reynolds of larceny. 

 Reynolds could not be convicted of trespass if he entered 

the property under a bona fide claim of right. Reed v. 

Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 65, 71, 366 S.E.2d 274, 278 (1988). A 
- 5 - 

bona fide claim of right in the trespass context "is a sincere, 

although perhaps mistaken, good faith belief that one has some 

legal right to be on the property. The claim need not be one of 

title or ownership, but it must rise to the level of 

authorization." Id. Reynolds had no claim of ownership or 

authorization, and therefore the evidence was sufficient to 

convict him of trespass. For these reasons, we affirm his 

convictions. 

 Affirmed.