Present: Hassell, C.J., Lacy, Keenan, Kinser, Lemons, and
Agee, JJ., and Compton, S.J.
LAURA L. FOSTER
OPINION BY
v. Record No. 050510 SENIOR JUSTICE A. CHRISTIAN COMPTON
January 13, 2006
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
In this criminal appeal, the sole question presented is
whether the five-year statute of limitations for petit larceny
applies when the defendant is charged with a misdemeanor bad-
check violation.
The facts are undisputed. In an arrest warrant issued on
April 24, 2003, it was charged that the defendant Laura L.
Foster, on February 17, 2002 in violation of Code § 18.2-181,
"did unlawfully . . . with the intent to defraud, make, draw,
utter, or deliver a check . . . drawn on the Marathon Bank in
the amount of $140.88, and made payable to Wal-Mart
Supercenter . . . Winchester, Va. . . . knowing that there
were insufficient funds in the account . . . for payment of
the check . . . ."
There was no dispute that defendant committed the act
alleged. She pled, however, that the one-year statute of
limitations for misdemeanors applied to the prosecution.
Following conviction and sentence upon a plea of not
guilty in the general district court, the defendant appealed
to the circuit court, where she also was found guilty and
sentenced to 12 months in jail with all but 14 days suspended.
Upon review, the Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed
the circuit court's judgment. Foster v. Commonwealth, 44 Va.
App. 574, 606 S.E.2d 518 (2004). We awarded defendant this
appeal.
Several statutes are involved in this controversy. Code
§ 18.2-181, a part of Virginia's Bad Check Law, as pertinent,
provides:
"Any person who, with intent to defraud, shall make
or draw or utter . . . any check, . . . for the
payment of money, upon any bank, . . . knowing, at
the time of such making, drawing, [or] uttering
. . . , that the maker or drawer has not sufficient
funds in, or credit with, such bank, . . . for the
payment of such check, . . . although no express
representation is made in reference thereto, shall
be guilty of larceny; and, if this check . . . has a
represented value of $200 or more, such person shall
be guilty of a Class 6 felony. In cases in which
such value is less than $200, the person shall be
guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor."
Code § 18.2-96, not a part of the Bad Check Law,
provides, as pertinent:
"Any person who: 1. Commits larceny from the person
of another of money or other thing of value of less
than $5, or 2. Commits simple larceny not from the
person of another of goods and chattels of the value
of less than $200, . . . shall be deemed guilty of
petit larceny, which shall be punishable as a
Class 1 misdemeanor."
2
Code § 19.2-8, dealing with limitation of prosecutions
generally, provides, as pertinent: "A prosecution for a
misdemeanor . . . shall be commenced within one year next
after there was cause therefor, except that a prosecution for
petit larceny may be commenced within five years . . . ."
In this appeal, as below, the defendant contends it was
error to permit the prosecution of a warrant for a misdemeanor
bad-check charge that was issued more than one year after the
date of the alleged offense. Conceding that she was charged
with a "larceny" under Code § 18.2-181, she says the
"dispositive issue" is whether she was charged with a "petit"
larceny to fall within the exclusion of the one-year statute
of limitations of Code § 19.2-8.
She argues there is no statutory authority that makes a
misdemeanor bad-check charge a petit larceny. Dwelling on the
headline as printed in the Code for § 18.2-96, which reads,
"Petit larceny defined; how punished," and according
substantive meaning to the headline, the defendant contends
the legislature presumably offers a controlling definition of
"petit larceny." She says: "The offense of misdemeanor bad
check is clearly not encompassed in . . . Code § 18.2-96(1)
because there is no element of a taking from the person."
She theorizes that the instant offense also is not
encompassed in subsection (2) of § 18.2-96 because the
3
provision refers to "simple larceny." She argues that a bad-
check charge is not a "simple" larceny because that crime must
be without the victim's assent, citing Vaughan v. Lytton, 126
Va. 671, 679, 101 S.E. 865, 867 (1920), (simple larceny is the
wrongful or fraudulent taking, of personal goods of some
intrinsic value, belonging to another, without his assent, and
with the intention to deprive the owner thereof permanently).
She maintains that in passing a bad check, the taking is with
the victim's assent.
Concluding, defendant contends that because a bad-check
charge is not a "simple" larceny, necessarily it is not a
"petit" larceny. And, if it is not a petit larceny, the
offense does not fall under the exclusion of the one-year
statute of limitations.
We reject the defendant's theory. A plain reading of the
controlling statute, Code § 18.2-181, which makes the instant
offense a crime, furnishes the complete answer to the issue
presented.
The statute, a part of the Bad Check Law, provides that
passing a bad check is "larceny." If the value is $200, or
more, the crime is punished as a Class 6 felony. If the value
is less than $200, it is a Class 1 misdemeanor. Therefore, it
follows logically that a larceny which is a misdemeanor is a
4
petit larceny. There are no other possibilities for other
larcenies within the context of § 18.2-181.
Addressing defendant's reliance substantively upon the
headline of Code § 18.2-96, and her argument in support, we
are of opinion that the statute has no impact upon the
foregoing analysis. In the first place, "The headlines of the
sections printed in black-face type are intended as mere
catchwords to indicate the contents of the sections and do not
constitute part of the act of the General Assembly." Code
§ 1-217.
Secondly, the statute does not define the term "petit
larceny" as a universal term of art. It merely prescribes the
penalty for two forms of misdemeanor taking, as the Court of
Appeals noted. Foster, 44 Va. App. at 581, 606 S.E.2d at 521.
Cf. McCullough v. Commonwealth, 38 Va. App. 811, 814, 568
S.E.2d 449, 450 (2002) ("Code § 18.2-96, which defines 'petit
larceny' . . .").
Accordingly, finding no error in the judgment of the
Court of Appeals, we will affirm it.
Affirmed.
5