Skeeter v. Com., 760662

Decision Date04 March 1977
Docket NumberNo. 760662,760662
Citation232 S.E.2d 756,217 Va. 722
CourtVirginia Supreme Court
PartiesRichard Lee SKEETER, Jr. v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. Record

Donald G. Wise, Portsmouth, for plaintiff in error.

Alan Katz, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Andrew P. Miller, Atty. Gen., on brief), for defendant in error.

Before I'ANSON, C.J., and CARRICO, HARRISON, COCHRAN, HARMAN, POFF and COMPTON, JJ.

HARRISON, Justice.

Richard Lee Skeeter, Jr. was convicted of grand larceny in the court below under an indictment containing a count which charged that defendant, on November 7, 1975, 'did steal U.S. currency . . . having a value of approximately $200 belonging to Charlie R. Mason'. This appeal questions the form of the indictment and the sufficiency of the evidence to convict him.

Charlie R. Mason operates an insurance agency in Portsmouth. On Novoember 7, 1975, Skeeter entered Mason's office ostensibly to seek information regarding automobile insurance. During their conversation Skeeter inquired if Mason would 'like to have three color television sets real cheap', 'a hundred dollars for all three'. Defendant's plan, as outlined to Mason, was that they would go to the J. M. Fields store in Portsmouth, pay $200 to a girl friend of Skeeter's who worked there and that she would go back to the credit department, run through the necessary papers and receive a pickup slip which would entitle them to receive the television sets from the store's loading ramp.

Mason said that defendant wanted him to go immediately to the J. M. Fields store, but that, being suspicious that defendant was attempting 'a ripoff' or some 'confidence scheme', Mason told Skeeter that he could not close his insurance office at that time and asked defendant to come back an hour later. As soon as Skeeter left the insurance office, Mason called the Portsmouth detective bureau, and arrangements were made for Mason to obtain identifiable money from a local bank and otherwise cooperate with defendant. It was understood that at the appropriate time the police would apprehend defendant and frustrate his scheme.

When Mason returned to his office, after having obtained the money, he was approached by a 'girl dressed in black, trimmed in red', who asked if he was 'looking for Mr. Skeeter'. When Mason replied in the affirmative, she said: 'Well, I am with him.' Mason noticed that Skeeter was sitting in a Cadillac automobile parked near his office. Mason in his automobile, and defendant with the girl in the Cadillac, then drove to the J. M. Fields store. After parking, all three walked inside the store. Although defendant requested that Mason give him the money before the three parties entered, Mason declined, having been instructed by the police not to give Skeeter any money until they were inside the store. When the parties got about midway in the store Mason gave Skeeter two $100 bills, and defendant, in turn, gave the money to the girl. Mason testified that at this point the girl 'made a left turn down the aisle and he (Skeeter) told me, . . . 'Let's wait out in the mall part here and give her a chance to get the televisions back to the loading platform and bring me the ticket back' to where we could go in the back and pick them up'.

It appears that after waiting approximately five minutes Skeeter suggested that they go back to the platform where he said the girl would probably be; that when they went to the platform, no one was there; that Mason said to defendant, 'Well, you and I have been ripped off.'; and that Skeeter responded, 'Well, let's go back to your office. Maybe she's down at your office with the receipts.' Mason and Skeeter drove to a place near Mason's office known as 'Bob's Hot Dog Stand', where defendant made a telephone call and told Mason, 'She's (the girl) going to meet us in the parking lot of an old abandoned station at Frederick Boulevard and Turnpike Road.' Mason and Skeeter then went to this location where defendant made another telephone call from a telephone booth. He then represented to Mason that, 'We are supposed to go to a girl friend's apartment.' When asked where the girl friend lived defendant replied: 'You just go where I tell you to go.' Shortly thereafter, the police stopped Mason and Skeeter and arrested defendant.

Mason never received any television sets or recovered the two $100 bills which he gave defendant and which defendant handed to the girl. Between the time the three parties entered the Fields store and the time Mason and Skeeter went to the loading platform, Mason said the Cadillac automobile used by Skeeter and the girl had disappeared.

We...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 cases
  • Wright v. West
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 19 Junio 1992
    ...worth at least $100, with the intent to deprive the owner of it permanently. See Va.Code § 18.2-95 (1975); Skeeter v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 722, 725, 232 S.E.2d 756, 758 (1977). Virginia law permits an inference that a person who fails to explain, or falsely explains, his exclusive possessi......
  • McEachern v. Com.
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals
    • 21 Octubre 2008
    ...by direct evidence. From the nature of the case, intent, generally, must be inferred from circumstances." Skeeter v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 722, 726, 232 S.E.2d 756, 759 (1977) (citation omitted). We accept the first premise upon which McEachern builds his argument. "The main difference betw......
  • Carter v. Commonwealth Of Va.
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • 10 Junio 2010
    ...belonging to another, without his assent, and with the intention to deprive the owner thereof permanently.’ ” Skeeter v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 722, 725, 232 S.E.2d 756, 758 (1977) (quoting Dunlavey v. Commonwealth, 184 Va. 521, 524, 35 S.E.2d 763, 764 (1945)); see also Payne v. Commonwealth......
  • Clay v. Com.
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals
    • 15 Diciembre 1998
    ...proof of "the wrongful taking of property in itself imports the animus furandi" or the intent to steal, Skeeter v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 722, 725, 232 S.E.2d 756, 758 (1977), and the fact finder "may infer the [criminal] intent from the immediate asportation and conversion of the property i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT