COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judges Elder and Clements
Argued at Richmond, Virginia
MICHAEL ANTOINE POINTER
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 1197-00-2 JUDGE LARRY G. ELDER
SEPTEMBER 18, 2001
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF COLONIAL HEIGHTS
Herbert C. Gill, Jr., Judge
Todd M. Ritter (Daniels & Morgan, on brief),
for appellant.
H. Elizabeth Shaffer, Assistant Attorney
General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on
brief), for appellee.
Michael Antoine Pointer (appellant) appeals from his bench
trial conviction for grand larceny. On appeal, he contends that
because the shirts he shoplifted were on sale and no evidence
established whether the tagged prices reflected that sale, the
evidence was insufficient to prove the shirts were valued at
$200 or more. We hold the evidence, viewed in the light most
favorable to the Commonwealth, established the value of the
shirts exceeded $200, and we affirm appellant's conviction.
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, we
examine the record in the light most favorable to the
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
Commonwealth, granting to its evidence all reasonable inferences
fairly deducible therefrom. See Martin v. Commonwealth, 4 Va.
App. 438, 443, 358 S.E.2d 415, 418 (1987). The judgment of a
trial court will be disturbed only if plainly wrong or without
evidence to support it. See id.
"Grand larceny consists of the theft, not from the person
of another, of goods and chattels valued at $200.00 or more."
Robinson v. Commonwealth, 258 Va. 3, 5, 516 S.E.2d 475, 476
(1999); see Code § 18.2-95(ii). "The value of the goods
specified in the statute is an essential element of the crime,
and the Commonwealth must prove that element beyond a reasonable
doubt." Walls v. Commonwealth, 248 Va. 480, 481, 450 S.E.2d
363, 364 (1994). "The value of the stolen property is measured
as of the time of the theft . . . ." Parker v. Commonwealth,
254 Va. 118, 121, 489 S.E.2d 482, 483 (1997). "[T]estimony
concerning the amount[] shown on [a price tag regularly affixed
to an item of personalty offered for sale] . . . suffice[s] to
make out a prima facie case of an item's value." Robinson, 258
Va. at 10, 516 S.E.2d at 479. An accused may present rebuttal
evidence on the issue of value, such as by offering evidence
that a store conducting a sale "computes the reduced price at
the cash register rather than marking the change on the price
tag." Id.; see also id. at 11, 516 S.E.2d at 479 (Keenan, J.,
dissenting) (noting that majority opinion "leaves to a defendant
- 2 -
the burden of proving whether a further reduced price would have
been computed at the cash register").
Here, the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to
the Commonwealth, established that the value of the shirts on
the day appellant stole them was $225.75. John A. Peterson, a
Colonial Heights police officer and security guard for Dillard's
Department Store, testified that the shirts appellant took bore
price tags totaling that amount, thereby "mak[ing] out a prima
facie case" of value sufficient to support appellant's grand
larceny conviction. Id. at 10, 516 S.E.2d at 479.
Appellant elicited testimony on cross-examination of
Officer Peterson that at least some of the shirts likely were on
sale, as demonstrated by a red-and-white sign which was located
above the table from which appellant took some of the shirts and
which was visible in the surveillance videotape offered into
evidence. However, no evidence established the amount of the
discount or proved that the price tag on each shirt did not
reflect the appropriate discount, if any. Dillard's Sales
Associate Veronica Banks testified that scanning the price tag
on a particular garment would cause "the price" and
"[e]verything that's on the ticket [to] come[] up on the
register" and that if the item were on sale, the computer
usually would register the sales price automatically. However,
neither Banks nor any other witness testified regarding whether
the sales price would also be marked on the garment's price tag
- 3 -
or would simply be computed at the cash register. Thus,
appellant failed to present evidence to rebut the Commonwealth's
prima facie evidence of value, which, per Robinson, 258 Va. at
10, 516 S.E.2d at 479, was sufficient to establish the value of
the items beyond a reasonable doubt.
For these reasons, we affirm appellant's conviction.
Affirmed.
- 4 -