COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Coleman and Elder 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

JUSTIN LAMONT WINSTON 

v. Record No. 0431-95-2 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 BY JUDGE JOSEPH E. BAKER 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA APRIL 9, 1996 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY 

Herbert C. Gill, Jr., Judge 

 Keith N. Hurley (Cawthorn, Picard & Rowe, on 

brief), for appellant. 

 Monica S. McElyea, Assistant Attorney General 

(James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 In this appeal from his bench trial conviction by the 

Circuit Court of Chesterfield County (trial court) of grand 

larceny in violation of Code § 18.2-95, Justin Lamont Williams 

(appellant) contends that the evidence was insufficient to show 

that he was guilty of grand larceny. 

 Upon familiar principles, we state 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). On 

May 6, 1994, James Yearout (Yearout), an off-duty employee of 

Tire America (the store), while sitting in his car waiting for it 

to be serviced, saw appellant drop a white "tire bag" into a 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

dumpster that was located within twelve to thirteen feet from the 

rear of the store. This was the dumpster nearest the loading 

dock. To Yearout, the white bag appeared to have an automobile 

tire in it. 

 If a customer of the store desires to take an old tire with 

him or her after purchasing new ones, the old tire is placed in a 

white bag for the customer's convenience. If the customer does 

not want the old tire, the store has a trailer parked near the 

rear of the building in which old tires are placed for subsequent 

disposal. Old tires are never discarded in the dumpsters and are 

not put in white bags when placed inside the trailer. 

 Yearout told Al Collins (Collins), the store's sales 

manager, what he had observed, and Collins "went to the dumpster 

to see what was in there." He saw two white bags. One was 

sufficiently open to enable him to see that "it had a new tire in 

it." Collins reported what he had seen "to the front office" and 

then went to lunch. Thereafter, Tom Mathews, who performed the 

store's security service, went to the dumpster and recovered two 

tires, one from each white bag. Collins later identified them as 

two Michelin tires with the same tire tread as on the one he had 

seen in the dumpster. Collins stated that on May 6, 1994, the 

sale price of these type tires was from $140 to $499 each. 

 When Mathews attempted to have a discussion with appellant 

concerning the tires, appellant denied any knowledge "about the 

tires." When Mathews further asked appellant to "talk about it," 
- 3 - 

appellant left the store, without responding further, and never 

again returned. 

 The above information was reported to the Chesterfield 

County Police Department. Officer Stein (Stein) responded. In 

the course of his investigation Stein sighted appellant about an 

hour later at the shopping mall where the store was located and 

engaged him in conversation. At first, appellant declined to 

give Stein any identification but subsequently gave him his 

driver's license. Stein asked appellant if he had stolen any 

tires from the store. When that question was asked, without 

giving any response, appellant "ran to the front of his car, 

jumped in and sped off through the parking lot, leaving [Stein] 

standing there with his driver's license." About thirty-five 

minutes later, when appellant returned to the mall, Stein "placed 

him under arrest for the theft." 

 Appellant's motion to strike was overruled. Thereafter, 

appellant rested without presenting any evidence. 

 Appellant primarily relies upon Maughs v. City of 

Charlottesville, 181 Va. 117, 23 S.E.2d 784 (1943). We do not 

agree that Maughs controls our decision here. In Maughs, the 

prosecution failed to prove that the railroad ties found in the 

defendant's possession were stolen. See Lew v. Commonwealth, 20 

Va. App. 353, 457 S.E.2d 392 (1995). In the case before us, it 

is clear that the tires placed in the dumpster had been placed 

there with the intent to deprive the owner thereof permanently. 
- 4 - 

 Declared a crime by Code § 18.2-95, larceny is also a common 

law crime 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). The animus furandi must accompany the 

taking, but the wrongful taking of property in itself imports the 

animus furandi. Id.

 To constitute the crime of larceny, there must have been a 

felonious taking of property from the possession of the owner, 

and the thief must, for an instant at least, have had complete 

and absolute possession of the stolen property, and during such 

possession and control he must have feloniously removed the same 

from the place it occupied just before he grasped, seized or laid 

hold of the same. See Jones v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 295, 

301, 349 S.E.2d 414, 418 (1986), and authorities there cited. 

 We cannot say that the judgment of the trial court was 

plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. The evidence in 

this record is sufficient to support a finding that appellant 

wrongfully took personal property belonging to the store, valued 

at $200 or more, without the owner's consent and with the intent 

to convert it to his own use and to deprive the owner thereof 

permanently. See Reese v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 671, 250 S.E.2d 

345 (1979). 

 Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

 Affirmed.