Blog Post
Recent Updates
March 20, 2011
Proposed Virginia Law Would Give Sex Crime Victims More Time to Sue
October 21, 2010
What is a Reckless Driving Summons?
October 21, 2010
What is the legal standard for a DWI or DUI stop and arrest in Fairfax County Virginia?
October 16, 2010
Victims of Crimes in Virginia Can Sue for Compensation
October 15, 2010
Distracted Driving Continues, Fairfax Virginia Personal Injury Lawyer and Car Accident Attorney Notes Cell Phone Laws Are Not Working
October 15, 2010
Critical Mistakes to Avoid After Being Charged with DWI/DUI in Virginia - Calling the Police Officer to Discuss Your Case
October 14, 2010
Drunk Driver Involved in Accident that Kills Passenger
October 14, 2010
Reckless Driving Charge Against Redskins' Williams Dismissed
July 02, 2010
Surviving a Virginia DWI/DUI or Reckless Driving Charge
November 29, 2009
Virginia Court Rules Additional Proof Needed in Prosecution for Trespassing
Archives
Defendant's Embezzlement Convictions Dismissed for Insufficient Evidence
July 13, 2009
Topic: Fraud, Theft & White Collar Crimes
In hearing the case of a Stinespring v. Commonwealth of Virginia, the Virginia Court of Appeals dismissed and vacated the defendant's embezzlement convictions for lack of evidence. The court noted that "[t]o establish the crime of embezzlement under Virginia Code § 18.2-111, the Commonwealth must prove that the accused wrongfully appropriated to his or her own use or benefit, with the intent to deprive the owner thereof, the property entrusted or delivered to the accused. Intent must often be proved by circumstantial evidence, such as the words or conduct of the accused. Circumstantial evidence is as competent and is entitled to as much weight as direct evidence, provided it is sufficiently convincing to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt. Whether an alternative hypothesis of innocence is reasonable is a question of fact and, therefore, is binding on appeal unless plainly wrong.
In rending its decision, the court noted that the "Commonwealth is burdened with proving beyond a reasonable doubt each and every constituent element of a crime before an accused may stand convicted of that particular offense . . . [and] where, as here, the Commonwealth's evidence failed to exclude the reasonable hypothesis of innocence that [appellant] acted without fraudulent intent, . . . no rational trier of fact could find [her] guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Therefore, the court concluded that the trial court erred in finding the evidence sufficient to prove appellant had the requisite intent to defraud to support her embezzlement convictions.
A full copy of the Stinespring opinion is available by clicking on the link at the end of this post. Additionally, you can obtain a copy of McDonald v. Commonwealth of Virginia (in which the Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not err in finding evidence was sufficient to prove appellant's conviction of embezzlement where it proved appellant wrongfully and fraudulently printed and misappropriated for his own benefit two money orders)
Manikas Law LLC | For more information on embezzlement, theft, and fraud cases, visit our main website or call us at 703-873-7473 or 888-503-8075 | We offer a free, no obligation consultation by former prosecutor Kyle G. Manikas | Serving Fairfax County/Tysons Corner, Prince William County (including all Manassas courts), Loudoun County (including Leesburg), Arlington County, Alexandria, and other parts of Northern Virginia.
Attachments:
VACt.ofAppeals-Stinespring.pdf
VACt.ofAppeals-McDonald.pdf
