Cunningham v. Commonwealth
219 Va. 399, 247 S.E.2d 683, 1978 Va. LEXIS 196 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The crime of larceny by false pretenses is consummated when a defendant obtains both title and possession of property from a victim through fraudulent means. The defendant's fraudulent intent must exist at the time the final element of either title or possession is obtained.
Facts:
- Nancy Cunningham went to Mountain View Chevrolet and agreed to purchase a 1969 Chevelle for $1,100 from the owner, Elvin Graves, Jr.
- Cunningham gave Graves a check for the purchase price, and in return, Graves assigned the vehicle's certificate of title to her, though the car remained at the dealership.
- Less than an hour later, Cunningham went to her bank and placed a stop-payment order on the check she had given to Graves.
- Later that evening, Cunningham returned to the dealership and, without revealing the stop-payment order, discussed her dissatisfaction with the car, and both parties agreed to rescind the sale.
- The next morning, Cunningham returned and told Graves she had changed her mind and wanted the car after all, again concealing the fact that the check was no longer valid.
- Believing the check for payment was still good, Graves relinquished possession of the car to Cunningham.
Procedural Posture:
- Nancy Cunningham was charged with larceny by false pretenses.
- Following a bench trial in a Virginia trial court, Cunningham was convicted.
- Cunningham was sentenced to four years in the penitentiary, with the sentence suspended in favor of probation.
- Cunningham, as the appellant, appealed her conviction to the Supreme Court of Virginia, arguing the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant commit larceny by false pretenses when she obtains possession of a vehicle by concealing that she has stopped payment on the purchase check, even if she had received title to the vehicle in a prior, non-fraudulent transaction?
Opinions:
Majority - I'Anson, C.J.
Yes. A defendant commits larceny by false pretenses when she obtains possession of property by concealing a material fact, completing the transfer of both title and possession. The crime is not consummated until the victim has parted with both title and control over the property. Although the defendant obtained title on Friday, the dealership retained possession and control. The parties then agreed to rescind the contract that evening. The crime was consummated on Saturday morning when the defendant, with fraudulent intent, made a false pretense by concealing the stop-payment order on the check. This concealment induced the owner to part with possession of the car, thereby completing the elements of the offense.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the temporal element of larceny by false pretenses, establishing that the crime is not complete until both title and possession are transferred. It prevents a defendant from escaping liability by arguing that fraudulent intent was formed after title was obtained but before possession was taken. The ruling solidifies the principle that the fraudulent act and intent must coincide with the final transfer of control over the property to the defendant, making the entire transaction, not just isolated parts of it, subject to scrutiny for fraud.
