Maye v. Com.
| Decision Date | 12 June 1972 |
| Citation | 189 S.E.2d 350,213 Va. 48 |
| Parties | Julian E. MAYE v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Eaton Brooks, Charlottesville (Michael & Dent, Charlottesville, on brief), for plaintiff in error.
James E. Kulp, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Andrew P. Miller, Atty. Gen., on brief), for defendant in error.
Before SNEAD, C.J., and I'ANSON, CARRICO, HARRISON, COCHRAN and HARMAN, JJ.
Julian E. Maye (Maye or defendant) waived a trial by jury and was convicted by the trial court of grand larceny after bailment of an automobile in violation of Code § 18.1--163. Maye was sentenced to serve a term of three years in the state penitentiary.
Maye's appeal is grounded on the proposition that the statute is unconstitutional. He says that it violates the due process provisions of the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments of the Constitution of the United States and § 8 of Article I of the Constitution of Virginia (1971).
Code § 18.1--163 provides:
Maye argues that the failure of the statute to require Mens rea or Scienter is fatal.
The distinction between larceny after bailment and the common law offense of larceny is that in the former it is not necessary to allege or prove that the original taking was trespassory. United States v. Closkey, 411 F.2d 1212 (4th Cir. 1969).
A claim that a statute on its face contains no requirement of Mens rea or Scienter is no ground for holding the statute unconstitutional since such requirement will be read into the statute by the court when it appears the legislature implicitly intended that it must be proved. Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 250, 72 S.Ct. 240, 96 L.Ed. 288 (1952); United States v. Johnson, 419 F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir. 1969), cert. den., 397 U.S. 1010, 90 S.Ct. 1235,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Welch v. Com., 1222-91-2
...It is a fundamental principle that common law larceny requires proof "that the original taking was trespassory." Maye v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 48, 49, 189 S.E.2d 350, 351 (1972). If no trespass occurs in the taking, the mere act of asportation does not constitute a larceny. Tanner v. Common......
-
Cady v. Commonwealth
...rea requirement must be read into it." Mosby v. Commonwealth, 23 Va. App. 53, 59, 473 S.E.2d 732 (1996) ; see also Maye v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 48, 49, 189 S.E.2d 350 (1972) (noting that "such requirement will be read into the statute by the court when it appears the legislature implicitly......
-
Clayton v. Commonwealth
...law when the defendant lacked notice that registration was required). Our Supreme Court in Maye v. Commonwealth , 213 Va. 48, 189 S.E.2d 350 (1972) (per curiam), saved the larceny-after-bailment statute from constitutional invalidity by implying a mens rea requirement that was not found in ......
-
Carter v. Commonwealth Of Va.
...paint to the store's employee, and requested a refund payment. Common law larceny requires a trespassory taking. Maye v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 48, 49, 189 S.E.2d 350, 351 (1972); Overstreet v. Commonwealth, 17 Va.App. 234, 236, 435 S.E.2d 906, 907 (1993). Carter, in essence, asserts that th......