Opinion ID: 1395016
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: lynchburg ii

Text: In the third trial, Mosteller was tried on eight counts, included in four indictments for grand larceny, based upon sales of Inter Royal furniture by four vendors. Each indictment contained one count relating to charges for installation and one for abandoned samples. The invitation to bid again contained the provision that the successful bidder may be required to furnish samples. There was no requirement that the vendor install the furniture. The four successful bidders were Contract Services, Ginns, Trend Contract Furnishings (Trend), and Litton Office Products Center (Litton). At the conclusion of the presentation of evidence by the Commonwealth, the trial court, on motion of Mosteller's counsel, in which the Commonwealth concurred, struck the evidence as to the indictment relating to Contract Services. Each successful bidder included in its bid, as directed by Mosteller, a requirement that contract awards be made all or nothing Inter-Royal  Split bid between Inter-Royal dealers will be acceptable. This condition was not imposed by Inter Royal. Also included in the bids was a provision that Inter Royal provide a factory engineer for approximately one week to assist with any furniture placement per drawings, minor alignment, etc.. Moreover, pursuant to conferences with Mosteller, the Commonwealth included in the invitation to bid specifications for the use of Fiber-X (or comparable substitute), which was a more expensive material than chipcore or particle board often used in manufacturing this type of furniture. At this time Inter Royal had discontinued the use of Fiber-X. John S. Alexick, Administrative Services Supervisor at the Lynchburg institution, testified that in preparing the requisition for furniture he conferred with Mosteller. He informed Mosteller that, due to financial constraints, State employees would install the furniture, but it was agreed that a minimum of two factory personnel would work with the State maintenance crew throughout the entire assembly. According to Alexick, the furniture was unloaded and placed by State employees but, as Mosteller had arranged, McIntyre and two young men assisted in assembling and installing units. They worked for approximately one day, then departed but returned five or six days later and worked for another day or day and a half. Mosteller made periodic visits after the furniture was delivered, but Alexick did not think these visits were for the purpose of assembling or installing the furniture. Alexick also testified that there were no samples available for examination prior to the purchase. However, he testified that after the purchase had been factored and set up, Mosteller called him and offered him some abandoned samples from another job at Catawba, North Carolina. These were not items used to sell the furniture purchased for the Lynchburg facility, they were not the type of furniture purchased, and some could not even be used at the Training School. Alexick asserted that Mosteller said that there would be no charge for these samples. Lewis Lankford, a warehouse foreman at the Lynchburg institution, also testified that the only samples received from Mosteller were some merchandise donated to us and sent from North Carolina. Robert S. Maitland, of the Department of Purchases and Supply, testified that Alexick had informed him that installation by the bidders was not desired. Accordingly, Maitland did not include any provision for installation in the invitation to bid. We turn to the evidence relating to the vendors.