Court Opinion

ID: 9954476
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-26 14:15:59.451008+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:25.339824
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
UNPUBLISHED

              Present: Judges Causey, Lorish and White

              CYNTHIA ANN BROWN
                                                                            MEMORANDUM OPINION*
              v.     Record No. 0134-23-2                                       PER CURIAM
                                                                               MARCH 26, 2024
              COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

                                    FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF AMELIA COUNTY
                                                 Paul W. Cella, Judge

                              (David G. Moss; The Law Office of David G. Moss, PLLC, on
                              brief), for appellant.

                              (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General; Stephen J. Sovinsky, Assistant
                              Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

                     Cynthia Ann Brown appeals her convictions of five counts of felonious uttering a check

              under Code § 18.2-172 and one count of feloniously obtaining money by false pretenses under

              Code § 18.2-178. She argues on appeal that the trial court erred in admitting Wells Fargo

              business records into evidence. After examining the briefs and record in this case, the panel

              unanimously holds that oral argument is unnecessary because “the appeal is wholly without

              merit.” Code § 17.1-403(ii)(a); Rule 5A:27(a). Finding no error, we affirm the trial court’s

              judgment.

                                                       BACKGROUND

                     Cynthia Ann Brown was indicted in Amelia County Circuit Court on five counts of

              felonious uttering a check under Code § 18.2-172 and one count of feloniously obtaining money

              by false pretenses under Code § 18.2-178. During the bench trial, the Commonwealth moved

                     *
                         This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413(A).
copies of the alleged fraudulent checks into evidence, relying on a business record certificate of

authenticity from Wells Fargo Bank. Brown objected to the fraudulent checks being admitted

into evidence and argued that the Commonwealth failed to comply with the authentication

requirements of Code § 8.01-390.3(B).1 The trial court overruled her objection and admitted the

evidence after defense counsel acknowledged that the Commonwealth provided him with the

documents in the course of discovery while the case was pending in the general district court.

The five checks in question were drawn on the account of Preston A. Richardson, were payable

to Cynthia A. Brown in amounts ranging from $45 to $782, bore Richardson’s purported

signature, and were endorsed and cashed by Brown. The checks were cashed while Richardson

was incarcerated. Richardson testified that he did not give Brown the authority to write and sign

his name on the checks in question.2

       After the Commonwealth rested, Brown testified on direct examination about why she

wrote and cashed the checks and claimed that she did so with Richardson’s permission. Brown

identified each of the five checks by its number, the amount of each check, and the purpose for

       1
          Under Code § 8.01-390.3(A), authentication of a business record and the foundation
required by Virginia Rule of Evidence 2:803(6) may be laid by “(i) witness testimony, (ii) a
certification of the authenticity of and foundation for the record” by either a record custodian or
other qualified witness, “or (iii) a combination of witness testimony and a certification.” Code
§ 8.01-390.3(B) requires a proponent of a business record to

               (i) give written notice to all other parties if a certification under
               this section will be relied upon in whole or in part in authenticating
               and laying the foundation for admission of such record and
               (ii) provide a copy of the record and the certification to all other
               parties, so that all parties have a fair opportunity to challenge the
               record and certification. The notice and copy of the record and
               certification shall be provided no later than 15 days in advance of
               the trial or hearing, unless an order of the court specifies a different
               time.
       2
         Richardson testified that he authorized Brown to use his checking account only one
time, to write a check to his attorney.
                                               -2-
which Richardson authorized it. She admitted that she wrote the checks to herself and cashed

them. At the close of trial, the court found Brown guilty of all the offenses and sentenced her to

30 years of incarceration with 29 years and 4 months suspended. This appeal follows.

                                             ANALYSIS

        Brown argues on appeal that although the Commonwealth provided her with copies of

the records and the certificate, the failure to provide written notice of its intent to authenticate

those records using that certificate rendered that evidence inadmissible under Code

§ 8.01-390.3(B). Brown asserts that the trial court’s improper overruling of her objection is

reversible error.

        “When ‘an accused unsuccessfully objects to evidence which he considers improper and

then on his own behalf introduces evidence of the same character, he thereby waives his

objection, and [the appellate court] cannot reverse for the alleged error.’” Stevens v.

Commonwealth, 72 Va. App. 546, 557 (2020) (alteration in original) (quoting Hubbard v.

Commonwealth, 243 Va. 1, 9 (1992)). The defendant “‘cannot . . . avail[]’ himself of an

objection to evidence if he ‘has at some other time during the trial,’ either ‘voluntarily elicited

the same evidence’ or ‘permitted it to be brought out by [the opposing party] without objection.’”

Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Burns v. Bd. of Supervisors of Stafford Cnty., 227 Va. 354,

363 (1984)). This “same-evidence principle” applies to not only “exactly the same evidence” but

also evidence involving “the same subject,” “the same character,” or “similar to that to which the

objection applies.” Id. (quoting Isaac v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 255, 260 (2011)).

        “An exception to the same-evidence principle exists for evidence elicited ‘during

cross-examination of a witness or in rebuttal testimony.’” Isaac, 58 Va. App. at 261 (quoting

Zektaw v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 127, 134 (2009)). However, “Virginia courts have applied

the rebuttal exception in very limited circumstances,” and it “does not apply when the defendant

                                                 -3-
presents in his case in chief the same or similar evidence he previously objected to in order to

explain it away or to offer a more favorable interpretation.” Id. at 261-62. For instance, a

defendant who testifies that he had no knowledge of a letter is rebutting testimony that he sent

such a letter; a defendant explaining why he wrote a letter is not. See Snead v. Commonwealth,

138 Va. 787, 801 (1924) (defendant’s testimony denying knowledge of a letter was rebuttal

testimony for purposes of same-evidence principle); Moore Lumber Corp. v. Walker, 110 Va.

775, 778-79 (1910) (defendant waived his parol evidence objection under same-evidence

principle when he provided his own parol evidence testimony).

          During Brown’s case-in-chief, while testifying on direct examination, Brown went through

the five checks and explained that she wrote and cashed them, the reasons why she did do so, and

how the owner gave her permission to write those checks for those purposes. Her testimony

authenticated “the same or similar evidence [s]he previously objected to in order to explain it away

or to offer a more favorable interpretation.” Isaac, 58 Va. App. at 262. Under the same-evidence

principle, Brown waived her objection to the introduction of the checks when she affirmatively used

their content in her own case-in-chief to develop her defense, and neither the cross-examination nor

rebuttal testimony exceptions apply. Accordingly, we decline to consider her waived objection on

appeal.

                                             CONCLUSION

          For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                                                                                            Affirmed.

                                                   -4-