Title: Britt v. Commonwealth
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 072175
State: Virginia
Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court
Date: October 31, 2008

PRESENT: All the Justices 
 
RICHARD L. BRITT 
 
v.   Record No. 072175 
 
 
        OPINION BY 
JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN 
 
                        October 31, 2008 
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 
 
 
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 
 
In this appeal from a defendant’s conviction for grand 
larceny, we consider whether the evidence was sufficient to 
establish that the value of the goods taken was at least $200.
 
Richard L. Britt was convicted in a bench trial in the 
Circuit Court of the City of Richmond of grand larceny, in 
violation of Code § 18.2-95, and of statutory burglary, in 
violation of Code § 18.2-91.  Britt’s burglary conviction is 
not before us in this appeal.  The circuit court sentenced 
Britt for the grand larceny conviction to a term of ten years’ 
imprisonment, which was suspended in its entirety. 
 
The evidence at trial showed that City of Richmond Police 
Officer R. Joy Norwood responded to a report of a “break-in” 
that occurred at the Chamberlayne Food Mart (the store) around 
4:00 a.m. one morning.  As Norwood approached the store in her 
police vehicle, she observed that a window in the store had 
been broken.  Norwood also saw various types of packaged 
tobacco products (collectively, “cigarette packs”) on the 
ground outside the store’s front entrance. 
 
Immediately thereafter, Norwood noticed two men standing 
in a parking lot across the street from the store.  At that 
time, Norwood saw one of these men, later identified as Britt’s 
accomplice, holding a black plastic bag.  Norwood also observed 
the other man, later identified as Britt, reaching into the bag 
in an apparent attempt to retrieve some of its contents. 
 
When the men saw Norwood’s police car, they fled.  Norwood 
pursued and ultimately apprehended Britt, who had dropped three 
sealed cigarette packs during the chase.  Police later 
retrieved these three items and the contents of the black 
plastic bag. 
 
The storeowner, Sama Azeire, arrived at the store later 
that morning.  He testified that he found some cigarette packs, 
which were ordinarily located on shelves behind the cash 
register, on the store floor.  However, Azeire did not describe 
the specific location of those cigarette packs on the floor.
 
Azeire stated that the total retail price of all the 
cigarette packs retrieved from the store floor and from outside 
the store was $410.59.  This total amount included the retail 
price of the cigarette packs found in the plastic bag, on 
Britt’s flight trail, and on the floor of the store. 
 
Defense counsel objected to the admission of Azeire’s 
receipts showing the total amount of $410.59.  Counsel argued 
that those receipts did not establish the value of the property 
 
2
taken, because the receipts did not contain separate 
tabulations distinguishing the value of the cigarette packs 
found outside the store from those located inside on the store 
floor.  The circuit court overruled the objection and admitted 
the receipts in evidence. 
 
At the close of the Commonwealth’s case, defense counsel 
made a motion to strike the evidence, which the circuit court 
denied.  Britt did not present evidence on his own behalf.  
After denying defense counsel’s renewed motion to strike, the 
circuit court found Britt guilty of both grand larceny and 
burglary. 
 
Britt appealed both his convictions to the Court of 
Appeals, which denied Britt’s petition by order.  Britt v. 
Commonwealth, Record No. 0040-07-2 (Oct. 1, 2007).  We awarded 
Britt an appeal from his grand larceny conviction limited to 
the question whether the evidence presented on the grand 
larceny charge was sufficient to establish the value of the 
property taken. 
 
Britt contends that the evidence was insufficient as a 
matter of law to establish that the value of the stolen 
property was at least $200.  He argues that the Commonwealth’s 
evidence failed to separate the value of the items taken out of 
the store from the value of the items found inside on the 
floor.  Britt asserts that the record in this case lacks any 
 
3
evidence that he ever seized or moved the cigarette packs found 
on the store floor.  According to Britt, it is equally likely 
that those items were “inadvertently knocked” from the store 
shelves during the taking of the items later found outside the 
store, and that such inadvertent movement does not constitute 
asportation for purposes of proving a larceny.  Thus, Britt 
argues that the cigarette packs found on the store floor should 
not have been included in calculating the total value of the 
stolen property, and that the record before us proves only that 
he is guilty of petit larceny. 
 
In response, the Commonwealth asserts that the crime of 
grand larceny was complete the moment the cigarette packs were 
removed from the store shelf, and that, regardless of their 
exact location on the floor, the retail price of those items 
properly was included in the valuation of the property taken.  
The Commonwealth contends that the circuit court reasonably 
could have inferred that Britt and his accomplice moved all the 
cigarette packs from the shelf with the intent to steal them.  
According to the Commonwealth, the fact that the men ultimately 
were unsuccessful in removing all the displaced cigarette packs 
from the store does not affect the value of the property taken.  
We disagree with the Commonwealth’s arguments. 
 
We consider the evidence in the light most favorable to 
the Commonwealth, the prevailing party in the circuit court, 
 
4
and we accord the Commonwealth the benefit of all reasonable 
inferences deducible from the evidence.  Jay v. Commonwealth, 
275 Va. 510, 524, 659 S.E.2d 311, 319 (2008); Bolden v. 
Commonwealth, 275 Va. 144, 148, 654 S.E.2d 584, 586 (2008).  
Circumstantial evidence, if convincing, is entitled to the same 
weight as direct testimony.  Riner v. Commonwealth, 268 Va. 
296, 303, 601 S.E.2d 555, 558 (2004); Epperly v. Commonwealth, 
224 Va. 214, 228, 294 S.E.2d 882, 890 (1982).  However, 
evidence that engenders only a suspicion or probability of 
guilt is not sufficient to support a conviction.  Jay, 275 Va. 
at 527, 659 S.E.2d at 321; Dunn v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 704, 
705—06, 284 S.E.2d 792, 793 (1981); Coffey v. Commonwealth, 202 
Va. 185, 188, 116 S.E.2d 257, 259 (1960). 
When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the 
evidence, we accord the judgment of a circuit court sitting 
without a jury the same weight as a jury verdict.  Tarpley v. 
Commonwealth, 261 Va. 251, 256, 542 S.E.2d 761, 763 (2001); 
Hickson v. Commonwealth, 258 Va. 383, 387, 520 S.E.2d 643, 645 
(1999).  We will affirm the circuit court’s judgment unless it 
is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.  Code 
§ 8.01-680; Jay, 275 Va. at 524, 659 S.E.2d at 319; Bolden, 275 
Va. at 148, 654 S.E.2d at 586; Tarpley, 261 Va. at 256, 542 
S.E.2d at 763; Commonwealth v. Taylor, 256 Va. 514, 518, 506 
S.E.2d 312, 314 (1998). 
 
5
We have defined larceny, a common law crime, as the 
wrongful or fraudulent taking of another’s property without his 
permission and with the intent to permanently deprive the owner 
of that property.  Tarpley, 261 Va. at 256, 542 S.E.2d at 763; 
Stanley v. Webber, 260 Va. 90, 96, 531 S.E.2d 311, 315 (2000); 
Taylor, 256 Va. at 518, 506 S.E.2d at 314; Bryant v. 
Commonwealth, 248 Va. 179, 183, 445 S.E.2d 667, 670 (1994).  
Grand larceny includes the taking, not from the person of 
another, of goods having a value of $200 or more.  Code § 18.2-
95; Tarpley, 261 Va. at 256, 542 S.E.2d at 763—64; Stanley, 260 
Va. at 96, 531 S.E.2d at 315; Taylor, 256 Va. at 518, 506 
S.E.2d at 314. 
The monetary amount specified in Code § 18.2-95 is an 
essential element of the crime of grand larceny, and the 
Commonwealth bears the burden of proving this element beyond a 
reasonable doubt.  Walls v. Commonwealth, 248 Va. 480, 481, 450 
S.E.2d 363, 364 (1994); Knight v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 85, 88, 
300 S.E.2d 600, 601 (1983); Wright v. Commonwealth, 196 Va. 
132, 139, 82 S.E.2d 603, 607 (1954).  Although proof that 
stolen items have some value will sustain a conviction for 
petit larceny, a conviction for grand larceny requires proof 
that the value of the stolen goods is at least $200.  Walls, 
248 Va. at 481, 450 S.E.2d at 364; Wright, 196 Va. at 139, 82 
S.E.2d at 607. 
 
6
Plainly, the Commonwealth must prove that the goods taken, 
as distinguished from those not taken, have a value of $200 or 
more.  An item is taken, for purposes of larceny, when a 
defendant secures dominion or absolute control over the 
property.  Jones v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 295, 300-01, 349 
S.E.2d 414, 418 (1986); see Mason v. Commonwealth, 200 Va. 253, 
256, 105 S.E.2d 149, 151 (1958); Green v. Commonwealth, 133 Va. 
695, 699, 112 S.E.2d 562, 563 (1922).  The duration of such 
dominion or absolute control, however, may be very brief or 
only momentary.  Jones, 3 Va. App. at 301, 349 S.E.2d at 418; 
see Green, 133 Va. at 699, 112 S.E.2d at 563; Welch v. 
Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 518, 522, 425 S.E.2d 101, 104 (1992).  
The defendant must hold, seize, or grasp the property, with his 
hands or otherwise.  Welch, 15 Va. App. at 522, 425 S.E.2d at 
104; Jones, 3 Va. App. at 301, 349 S.E.2d at 418; see Mason, 
200 Va. at 256, 105 S.E.2d at 151. 
In addition, proof of larceny requires that there be an 
asportation, or a movement of the seized goods, however slight, 
coupled with an intent to permanently deprive the owner of 
those goods.  See Bryant v. Commonwealth, 248 Va. 179, 183, 445 
S.E.2d 667, 670 (1994); Pritchard v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 559, 
562, 303 S.E.2d 911, 913 (1983); Mason, 200 Va. at 256, 105 
S.E.2d at 151.  The defendant’s intent to steal must exist at 
the time the seized goods are moved.  McAlevy v. Commonwealth, 
 
7
44 Va. App. 318, 322, 605 S.E.2d 283, 285 (2004), aff’d, 270 
Va. 378, 380, 620 S.E.2d 758, 760 (2005); Welch, 15 Va. App. at 
524 n.4, 425 S.E.2d at 106 n.4; see Tarpley, 261 Va. at 256, 
542 S.E.2d at 764; Pritchard, 225 Va. at 562, 303 S.E.2d at 
913. 
Applying these principles, we conclude that the evidence 
of value in this case was insufficient as a matter of law to 
establish that element of grand larceny.  There was no 
evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that Britt or his 
accomplice seized, grasped, or held the cigarette packs found 
on the store floor so as to exercise dominion or absolute 
control over them.  In particular, the record is silent 
regarding the relative distance of those cigarette packs from 
their original location on the store shelves. 
Lacking evidence that Britt or his accomplice exercised 
dominion or absolute control over the cigarette packs found on 
the floor, the record also necessarily fails to establish that 
there was an asportation of those items, that is, movement of 
the seized items accompanied by the intent to steal.  In 
effect, therefore, the Commonwealth asks us to speculate that 
Britt and his accomplice tried to remove from the premises the 
items found on the store floor, but were unsuccessful in doing 
so, or that the items actually removed from the store had a 
value of $200 or more.  We will not engage in such speculation. 
 
8
 
9
We hold that it is impossible to determine from the 
evidence the cumulative value of the items Britt and his 
accomplice seized and carried from the store.  Because the 
total amount of $410.59 computed by the store’s owner included 
the value of the cigarette packs found on the store floor and 
because there was no evidence showing the quantity or value of 
those items retrieved from the floor, the total amount of 
$410.59 was not competent evidence of the value of the items 
removed from the store.  Thus, we conclude that the 
Commonwealth failed to prove that the value of the items taken 
was $200 or more.  In the absence of such evidence, Britt’s 
conviction of grand larceny rests on speculation and cannot 
stand.  See Knight, 225 Va. at 88, 300 S.E.2d at 601; Dunn, 222 
Va. at 705-06, 284 S.E.2d at 793. 
For these reasons, we will reverse the Court of Appeals’ 
judgment and vacate the conviction for grand larceny.  We will 
remand the case to the Court of Appeals with direction that the 
case be remanded to the circuit court for a new trial on a 
charge of petit larceny if the Commonwealth be so advised.  We 
do not remand solely for imposition of a new sentence on the 
lesser offense as we did in Commonwealth v. South, 272 Va. 1, 
630 S.E.2d 318 (2006), because here, unlike in South, both 
parties have not consented to that relief. 
Reversed and remanded.