Title: Milteer v. Commonwealth
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 031558
State: Virginia
Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court
Date: April 23, 2004

PRESENT: All the Justices 
 
ELMER MILTEER 
 
 
 
            OPINION BY 
v.  Record No. 031558 
               JUSTICE G. STEVEN AGEE 
 
 
 
           APRIL 23, 2004 
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 
 
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 
 
I.  BACKGROUND AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW 
On March 28, 2001, Norfolk police officers Steve Stephens 
(“Stephens”) and Maurice S. Joseph (“Joseph”) were screening 
packages for narcotics at a Federal Express facility in Norfolk, 
Virginia.  While doing so, the officers noticed two packages 
similar in size, shape and labeling to packages determined 
through prior investigations to contain unauthorized (commonly 
referred to as “pirated”) compact discs (“CDs”) and 
videocassettes.  The officers opened the packages pursuant to a 
search warrant and discovered that they did indeed contain CDs 
and videocassettes.1
The packages were addressed to “Guy” at a business address, 
407 Pretlow Street, in the City of Franklin, Virginia.  In 
conjunction with the Franklin police department, Joseph posed as 
a Federal Express employee and delivered both packages to that 
address.  During the first attempt to deliver the packages, no 
                     
 
1 Stephens testified that at least one of the videocassettes 
was a copy of a movie that opened in theaters the previous 
weekend. 
one at that address would accept the packages and pay the 
charges due upon delivery.  Joseph then made a second delivery 
attempt and found Elmer Milteer (“Milteer”) standing behind a 
vehicle in the parking lot at 407 Pretlow Street talking on a 
cellular telephone.  Joseph approached Milteer and told him he 
had a delivery and the charge was $101.40.  Milteer accepted the 
packages without comment or examining the contents, but gave 
Joseph $102.00 and told him to keep the change. 
Stephens and another police officer observed Milteer place 
the packages in the back of his vehicle and drive away.  
Stephens followed Milteer’s vehicle for several blocks before 
police officers in a marked police vehicle stopped Milteer.  The 
officers arrested Milteer and searched his vehicle where they 
recovered the packages Joseph had just delivered to Milteer, but 
also found separate boxes containing 183 CDs and 72 
videocassettes.  In addition to the CDs and videocassettes, 
officers discovered receipts for shipments from New York and a 
business license from Murfreesboro, North Carolina indicating 
Milteer was in the business of selling, inter alia, T-shirts and 
CDs.  Officers also recovered a business license from Hertford 
County, North Carolina and, from Milteer’s wallet, a handwritten 
price list titled “the Underground Wholesale Price List.” 
After his arrest Milteer told a Franklin police officer 
that he sold items from the back of his truck in Franklin and in 
 
2
the area of North Carolina where he lived.  Milteer denied 
knowing it was illegal to sell the CDs and videocassettes for 
which he was arrested and offered to help the officers apprehend 
the person from New York who shipped the packages.  He also 
stated that the CDs or videocassettes would be worth $3.00 to 
$5.00 each if he were to sell them. 
Milteer was the subject of four indictments involving: (1) 
violation of Code § 59.1-41.3 by possession for the purpose of 
selling videocassettes produced, manufactured, distributed or 
acquired in violation of Chapter 3.1 of Title 59.1, (2) 
possession of videocassettes whose labels did not reflect the 
true names and addresses of their manufacturers, Code § 59.1-
41.4, (3) violation of Code § 59.1-41.3 by possession for the 
purpose of selling CDs produced, manufactured, distributed or 
acquired in violation of Chapter 3.1 of Title 59.1, and (4) 
possession of CDs whose labels did not reflect the true names 
and addresses of their manufacturers, Code § 59.1-41.4.  None of 
the indictments charged a violation of Code § 59.1-41.2 or 
mentioned that statute.  The two indictments which cited Code 
§ 59.1-41.4 made no reference to Code § 59.1-41.3. 
At trial the Commonwealth presented testimony from Phillip 
Brooks (“Brooks”), an official with the Recording Industry 
Association of America.  As an expert on music piracy, Brooks 
testified that he examined the 113 CDs delivered to Milteer by 
 
3
Joseph and concluded all were counterfeit.  He also stated that 
none of the CDs were labeled with the name and address of the 
true manufacturer (i.e. the counterfeiter).  In addition, Brooks 
examined the 183 other CDs found in Milteer’s vehicle and 
determined that all but four of those CDs were counterfeit. 
The Commonwealth also presented testimony from Robert W. 
Hunter (“Hunter”), an investigator for the Motion Picture 
Association of America.  Hunter, as an expert in the field of 
counterfeit videocassettes, testified that he had examined the 
90 videocassettes contained in the package Joseph delivered to 
Milteer and all were counterfeit.  Furthermore, the 
videocassettes were not labeled with the name or address of the 
true manufacturer.  Hunter also testified that another 72 
videocassettes found in Milteer’s vehicle were also counterfeit 
and did not contain the true address or name of the 
manufacturer. 
At the close of the Commonwealth’s case, Milteer moved to 
strike the evidence.  Although trial counsel’s arguments are 
hard to follow at points, he contended there should only be one 
charge against Milteer under Code § 59.1-41.3 and Code § 59.1-
41.4 because these statutes were not intended to establish two 
separate offenses:  “if you say he’s violating .3 then what 
statute are you looking at? . . . You’ve got to look at another 
statute first . . .  I don’t think if your underlying offense is 
 
4
.4 you can go up and get .3 also”.  Milteer also asserted that 
the CDs and videocassettes retrieved from his vehicle should be 
consolidated for purposes of prosecution instead of permitting 
the Commonwealth to charge possession of the delivered packages 
separately from the CDs and videocassettes already in his 
vehicle. 
After hearing the arguments of counsel, the trial court 
struck two of the indictments so Milteer was tried on one 
indictment regarding videocassettes under Code § 59.1-41.3 (“the 
videocassette charge”) and the other as to CDs under Code 
§ 59.1-41.4 (“the CD charge”).  The trial court then convicted 
Milteer on both indictments by these conviction orders: 
(1)  The videocassette charge 
Elmer Milteer, Jr did unlawfully and feloniously 
possess for purpose of selling or renting . . . 
VHS video cassettes that have been produced, 
manufacture[d], distributed or acquired in 
violation of Chapter 3.1 of Title 59.1 of the 
1950 Code of Virginia as amended, Virginia Code 
Section 59.1-41.3 . . . . 
 
 
(2)  The CD charge 
 
Elmer Milteer, Jr did unlawfully and feloniously 
possess . . . compact disc for the purpose of 
sale, rental or transfer by any manufacture[r], 
. . . without having on its packaging the true 
name and address of the manufacturer, Virginia 
Code Section 59.1-41.4 . . . . 
 
 
5
Upon sentencing for the videocassette charge and the CD 
charge, Milteer’s existing probation for a prior drug conviction 
was revoked. 
On appeal to the Court of Appeals of Virginia, Milteer 
argued he could not be convicted under both Code § 59.1-41.3 and 
Code § 59.1-41.4 because conduct under Code § 59.1-41.4 can only 
be a criminal offense when read in conjunction with Code § 59.1-
41.3.  The Court of Appeals affirmed both convictions, noting 
that the acts charged in the indictments could separately 
violate the proscriptions of Code §§ 59.1-41.2 and 59.1-41.4 and 
“defendant was culpable pursuant to Code § 59.1-41.3 for both 
offenses.”  The opinion did not directly address the issue that 
Milteer’s indictment and conviction order on the CD charge for 
violating Code § 59.1-41.4 made no reference to Code § 59.1-41.3 
or any other statute which directly denominates particular 
conduct as a crime. 
We awarded Milteer this appeal.  For the reasons set out 
below, the judgment of the Court of Appeals will be affirmed in 
part, reversed in part, and the case remanded. 
II.  ANALYSIS 
On appeal to this Court Milteer asserts that he could not 
be convicted of violating Code § 59.1-41.3 and separately 
violating Code § 59.1-41.4.  He also contends the evidence was 
insufficient to sustain his convictions and, consequently, that 
 
6
it was error to find he violated his probation in effect at the 
time of his convictions. 
A.  Convictions under Code § 59.1-41.3 and Code § 59.1-41.4. 
We are mindful that “[p]enal statutes must be ‘strictly 
construed against the State’ and . . . ‘cannot be extended by 
implication or construction, or be made to embrace cases which 
are not within their letter and spirit.’ ”  Commonwealth, Dep't 
of Motor Vehicles v. Athey, 261 Va. 385, 388, 542 S.E.2d 764, 
766 (2001) (quoting Berry v. City of Chesapeake, 209 Va. 525, 
526, 165 S.E.2d 291, 292 (1969)).  “It is unquestionably true 
that before an accused can be convicted of the violation of a 
statute, the crime charged must fall within the provisions 
thereof.  It is also true that where no offense is charged in an 
indictment, the appellate court will reverse the judgment of the 
trial court.”  Xippas v. Commonwealth, 141 Va. 497, 501, 126 
S.E. 207, 207 (1925); see also Commonwealth v. Doss, 159 Va. 
968, 973-74, 167 S.E. 371, 373 (1933); Smith v. Commonwealth, 
160 Va. 943, 946, 169 S.E. 550, 551 (1933). 
 
Code § 59.1-41.3 makes it “unlawful for any person to 
knowingly sell, rent, cause to be sold or rented, or possess for 
the purpose of selling or renting any recorded device that has 
been produced, manufactured, distributed, or acquired in 
violation of any provision of this chapter.”  Code § 59.1-41.4 
mandates that “every recorded device sold, rented or transferred 
 
7
or possessed for the purpose of sale, rental or transfer . . . 
shall contain on its packaging the true name and address of the 
manufacturer.”2
While the possession of recorded devices for sale that do 
not have the “true name and address of the manufacturer” may be 
contrary to the provisions of Code § 59.1-41.4, the plain text 
of Code § 59.1-41.4 contains no provision making such possession 
a crime.  Under the General Assembly’s writing of Chapter 3.1 of 
Title 59.1, it is only through Code § 59.1-41.3 that possession 
of prohibited recorded devices contrary to the standard of Code 
§ 59.1-41.4 becomes a criminal act.  Yet, neither Milteer’s 
indictment nor conviction order for the CD charge under Code 
§ 59.1-41.4 makes any reference to Code § 59.1-41.3, either 
directly or indirectly, by citation or narrative. 
                     
2 The full text of Code § 59.1-41.4 reads as 
follows: 
Ninety days after July 1, 1972, every recorded device 
sold, rented or transferred or possessed for the 
purpose of sale, rental or transfer by any 
manufacturer, distributor, or wholesale or retail 
merchant shall contain on its packaging the true name 
and address of the manufacturer. The term 
"manufacturer" shall not include the manufacturer of 
the cartridge or casing itself. The term "recorded 
device" means the tangible medium upon which sounds or 
images are recorded or otherwise stored, and includes 
any phonograph record, disc, wire, tape, 
videocassette, film or other medium now known or later 
developed on which sounds or images are recorded or 
otherwise stored. 
 
 
8
 
By contrast, Milteer’s indictment and conviction order on 
the videocassette charge recite that he possessed the 
videocassettes, which “have been produced, manufactured, 
distributed or acquired in violation of Chapter 3.1 of Title 
59.1 . . . Virginia Code § 59.1-41.3.”  By the reference to 
violation of Chapter 3.1, the videocassette charge could bring 
within its ambit either or both a violation of Code § 59.1-41.2 
for possessing videocassettes of unauthorized recordings or 
having a mislabeled videocassette as set out in Code § 59.1-
41.4.  As the Court of Appeals correctly noted, either act is 
made a crime by virtue of Code § 59.1-41.3, which makes it 
unlawful to possess the videocassettes “in violation of any 
provision of this chapter.” 
Provided the evidence of guilt is sufficient, possession of 
the pirated videocassettes as charged against Milteer is a crime 
under Code § 59.1-41.3.  This is because the videocassette 
charge was specifically made by reference to a statute which 
makes the charged conduct a crime:  Code § 59.1-41.3. 
 
However, the indictment and conviction order for the CD 
charge are markedly different.  The only act for which Milteer 
was charged and convicted in the CD charge was possessing CDs 
“without having on its packaging the true name and address of 
the manufacturer, Virginia Code Section 59.1-41.4.”  Neither the 
indictment nor conviction order states Milteer’s act was “in 
 
9
violation of Chapter 3.1 of Title 59.1” as set out in the 
videocassette charge.  Further, there is no direct or indirect 
reference in the CD charge to Code § 59.1-41.3, which the 
structure of Chapter 3.1 uses as the vehicle to make an act 
under § 59.1-41.4 a crime.  It is only with the imprimatur of 
Code § 59.1-41.3 that the General Assembly deems acts under Code 
§ 59.1-41.4 to be criminal acts. The fatal flaw in Milteer’s 
conviction on the CD charge is that it was obtained based on a 
statute which, by itself, does not criminalize Milteer’s 
actions. 
If the Commonwealth had charged and convicted Milteer under 
Code § 59.1-41.3 on the CD charge by virtue of acts contrary to 
Code § 59.1-41.4, then Milteer would have been properly 
convicted of acts that the General Assembly has denominated as a 
crime.  However, the Commonwealth did not do so and ignored the 
clear statutory requirements of Chapter 3.1, which do not make 
acts under Code § 59.1-41.4, standing alone, a crime. 
Accordingly, the trial court was in error convicting 
Milteer of the CD charge and should have granted his motion to 
strike that indictment.  The Court of Appeals erred in affirming 
that conviction.  Therefore, the Court of Appeals’ judgment 
affirming Milteer’s conviction under Code § 59.1-41.4 on the CD 
charge will be reversed. 
B.  Sufficiency of the Evidence. 
 
10
 
Milteer also asserts that the Commonwealth’s evidence was 
insufficient to show he “knew these tapes delivered to him were 
not made in compliance with the statutory requirements.”  In 
view of our disposition of the CD charge above, we only consider 
the sufficiency argument with regard to the videocassette 
charge. 
 
As an initial matter, the Commonwealth contends that 
Milteer’s claim regarding the sufficiency of the evidence was 
procedurally defaulted in the trial court.  The Commonwealth 
asserts that Milteer only alleged that the evidence failed to 
prove his intent to sell or distribute the videocassettes, not 
that he did not know the videocassettes he possessed were 
illegal reproductions.  The Court of Appeals agreed with the 
Commonwealth and determined that at trial Milteer only argued 
the Commonwealth’s failure to prove he “had the intent to 
distribute or sell these items.”  Milteer v. Commonwealth, Rec. 
No. 0939-02-1, slip op. at 7 (June 3, 2003).  We disagree with 
the Court of Appeals on this point. 
 
The record shows that, in support of his motion to strike, 
Milteer argued at trial that “[t]he Commonwealth has not proven 
. . . that my client [acted] knowingly or with the intent to 
sell or distribute these items.”  (Emphasis added).  This 
argument, based on the alternate grounds of both “knowledge” and 
“intent,” is sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal.  
 
11
Having determined Milteer’s sufficiency claim is not 
procedurally defaulted, we address the merits. 
“Applying well-established principles of appellate review, 
we will consider the evidence and all reasonable inferences 
fairly deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the 
Commonwealth, the prevailing party below.”  Dowden v. 
Commonwealth, 260 Va. 459, 461, 536 S.E.2d 437, 438 (2000). 
The evidence presented at trial proved that Milteer 
accepted, paid for, and transported two packages known by police 
officers to contain pirated CDs and videocassettes.  When the 
police stopped Milteer they discovered, in addition to the 
delivered packages, an additional 183 CDs and 72 videocassettes, 
all but four of which were pirated and mislabeled.  Milteer had 
a price list in his wallet titled “the Underground Wholesale 
Price List.” 
 
At trial, Franklin police officer Richard Harvey (“Harvey”) 
testified that he had previously seen Milteer selling CDs, 
clothing and jewelry from the back of his truck in the City of 
Franklin.  After his arrest, Milteer admitted to Harvey that he 
sold items from the back of his truck throughout Franklin and 
the area of North Carolina where he lived.  Milteer admitted, 
and the “underground” price list found in his wallet reflected, 
that the CDs and videocassettes would sell for between $3.00 and 
$5.00 – prices significantly lower than those at retail stores. 
 
12
 
The evidence also showed that some of the videocassettes in 
Milteer’s possession were copies of a movie that had opened in 
theaters the weekend prior to his arrest.  The trial court could 
reasonably infer that these videocassettes were therefore 
unavailable for purchase at a retail store and therefore 
unavailable for sale to the public. 
In sum, there was more than sufficient evidence to prove 
that Milteer knowingly possessed illegal reproduction 
videocassettes for sale.  The trial court did not err in finding 
the evidence sufficient to convict Milteer of the videocassette 
charge. 
C.  Probation Revocation. 
The trial court sentenced Milteer to two years in prison 
with one year and six months suspended for each of the two 
convictions.  At the time he committed the instant offenses 
Milteer was on probation with a fifteen year suspended sentence 
for sale of cocaine.  Upon conviction for the CD and 
videocassette charges, the trial court revoked the suspended 
sentence and then re-suspended twelve years.  Milteer thus 
received three years to serve on the prior offense after serving 
the new six-month sentences. 
Milteer argues on appeal that revocation of his probation 
by the trial court should be reversed if his convictions on the 
instant charges are reversed by this Court.  Although we have 
 
13
determined that his conviction under Code § 59.1-41.4 for the CD 
charge was improper, his conviction under Code § 59.1-41.3 on 
the videocassette charge will be affirmed.  However, since it 
cannot be determined from the record the extent to which the 
trial court’s judgment revoking Milteer’s probation and 
previously suspended sentence was based upon the conviction for 
the CD charge, we must reverse the probation revocation judgment 
and remand to the trial court for consideration in view of our 
opinion in this case. 
III.  CONCLUSION 
 
Code § 59.1-41.4, by its plain language, contains no 
provision criminalizing the failure to abide by its labeling 
requirements.  Acts in contravention of that statute are only 
made criminal under the present version of the Code when an 
offense is charged through Code § 59.1-41.3.  Since Milteer was 
charged and convicted on the CD charge solely under Code § 59.1-
41.4, we will reverse his conviction on the CD charge and 
dismiss the indictment.  We also find the evidence sufficient 
that Milteer knowingly possessed illegally reproduced 
videocassettes for sale in violation of Code § 59.1-41.3 and we 
will affirm his conviction on the videocassette charge.  
Finally, in view of our reversal of the CD charge, we will 
reverse the trial court’s judgment revoking Milteer’s probation 
 
14
and remand the case for a new proceeding on the probation 
revocation if the Commonwealth be so advised. 
Affirmed in part, 
reversed in part, 
and remanded. 
 
15