Spratley v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 12 December 2019 |
| Docket Number | Record No. 181452 |
| Citation | 836 S.E.2d 385 |
| Parties | Andrew Lamont SPRATLEY v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Wayne Lee Kim for appellant.
Mason D. Williams, Assistant Attorney General (Mark R. Herring, Attorney General; Katherine Quinlan Adelfio, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Present: All the Justices
OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS
In this appeal, we consider whether the Court of Appeals of Virginia ("Court of Appeals") erred when it determined that the evidence presented at the trial of Andrew Lamont Spratley ("Spratley") in the Circuit Court of Loudoun County ("circuit court") was sufficient to affirm his conviction for felony destruction of property.
A grand jury indicted Spratley for felony destruction of property of a value of $1,000 or more, in violation of Code § 18.2-137, based on his alleged destruction of an electronic grocery store scale. Spratley pleaded not guilty and a one-day bench trial was held.
At trial, Katey Stanbridge ("Stanbridge"), an asset protection specialist for a Wegmans grocery store in Sterling, Virginia, testified that on January 21, 2016 she observed Spratley and a female companion having "a strong discussion" on the store's camera system. When asked if Spratley and his companion were arguing, Stanbridge explained that the camera system did not record sound, but that "[h]ands were moving around" and "[i]t seemed to be a big discussion." During the discussion, Stanbridge saw Spratley "deliberate[ly]" "push over" a "scale," causing it to "hit the floor" and "shatter[ ]" into "multiple pieces." The scale was unrepairable due to a "software issue."
According to Stanbridge, prior to breaking, the scale "was working correctly" and customers were using it to "print off labels." The broken scale, a "KH-100 Bizerba," was "no longer being manufactured." As a result, Wegmans "had to replace it with a newer model, a Mettler Toledo," which cost $4,090. Stanbridge explained that another Wegmans employee, Vince Fragassi, ordered the Mettler Toledo using "STARS," an "internal program" that Wegmans uses for "all of its ordering." After an order is placed in STARS, Wegmans' "supplier in New York" "sends [ ] the merchandise." Stanbridge stated that Fragassi orders "all of our scales" and "would know if Bizerbas are available or not." In the STARS request for the Mettler Toledo, which was admitted into evidence over Spratley's objection, Fragassi wrote "[n]o Bizerba scales available to replace the scale that was damaged."
Stanbridge further testified that the Mettler Toledo "work[s] the exact same way," has "the same design and layout," and "[p]erforms the same functions" as the Bizerba. She added that the Mettler Toledo is "just a different model." When asked if the Mettler Toledo "essentially did replace [the Bizerba] exactly, just a different name plate," Stanbridge answered "correct."
When the Commonwealth rested, Spratley moved to strike the evidence, arguing that the Commonwealth failed to establish the value of the Bizerba was $1,000 or more, as required for a felony conviction under Code § 18.2-137. Spratley claimed that the Commonwealth was required to prove the "fair market value" of the Bizerba at the time of its destruction. Because the Commonwealth did not present "evidence of how old the scale was," "how much it [had] depreciated," and the original purchase price, Spratley maintained that the Commonwealth had failed to meet the statutory threshold for a felony conviction and asked the court to "proceed as a misdemeanor."
The Commonwealth responded that if Spratley was charged with grand larceny, it would be required to prove the fair market value of the Bizerba. However, the Commonwealth asserted that under Code § 18.2-137, it could prove "the amount of loss caused by [the] destruction" of property by establishing its "fair market replacement value." The Commonwealth acknowledged that the "value of the [Bizerba] scale may very well have been under the $4,0[9]0 that the new [Mettler Toledo] cost," but contended that "[w]hat matters is how much [the Bizerba] costs to replace." Claiming that its evidence established that the cost of the Mettler Toledo was more than the $1,000 threshold, and that the Mettler Toledo was "the exact same scale" as the Bizerba "other than the name on it," the Commonwealth argued that it presented "more than enough evidence [ ] to overcome the motion to strike."
Spratley countered that while Code § 18.2-137 permitted the Commonwealth to prove the value of destroyed property by establishing its "fair market replacement value," the Mettler Toledo was "not a replacement." Spratley asserted that the Mettler Toledo was "a different scale" and no evidence showed it was "not an upgrade." Spratley also argued that the Commonwealth "did not produce evidence that there was no [Bizerba] KH-100 available." Rather, the "evidence before the court" established that "Wegmans went to [ ] their one supplier," and that "one supplier did not have a Bizerba KH-100."
The circuit court denied the motion to strike. The circuit court explained that Consequently, Wegmans "paid the replacement value for a different make, model with the same functionality as the Bizerba scale that looked the same, had the same design layout, and worked the same way." Based on this evidence, the court determined that whether a scale of the "same make and model [w]as available," and, if not, "what would be a reasonable replacement" were issues for the "fact finder."
Spratley did not present evidence. He renewed his motion to strike at the close of all evidence, reiterating his previous arguments and adding that no evidence showed Wegmans looked for a "used" scale before buying a "new" scale to replace the Bizerba. During his argument, the circuit court asked about the meaning of the statement, "No Bizerba scales available to replace the scale that was damaged," which was written in the STARS request for the Mettler Toledo. Spratley responded that Stanbridge testified Wegmans "checked with [its] supplier in New York" for a Bizerba, and that the "statement [was] from [its] supplier." Therefore, Spratley argued the evidence showed Wegmans' supplier did not have a Bizerba, not that no Bizerbas were available "out on the market." The circuit court denied the motion to strike.
After hearing closing argument, the circuit court found Spratley guilty of felony destruction of property. The circuit court determined, based on Stanbridge's testimony, that the Mettler Toledo was "an appropriate replacement" because it "performs the same function," has "the same design layout," and is "the same except for [ ] the model number and name plate" as the Bizerba. Accordingly, the circuit court found "the fair market replacement value of the [Bizerba] [wa]s in excess of $4,000."
Spratley filed a motion to set aside the verdict, arguing that the Commonwealth had failed to establish the "fair market replacement value" of the Bizerba. He contended that the Commonwealth had only presented evidence of the "replacement cost" of the Bizerba, and that "the cost of a brand new scale does not reflect what value the old scale was worth." Consequently, he asserted that the circuit court had erred by "focus[ing] on whether a replacement can be found and the cost of that replacement," rather than "the value of the object destroyed."
In its response, the Commonwealth maintained that "[r]eplacement value is the amount it costs to replace an item," and, therefore, the "fair market replacement value" of the Bizerba was $4,090, the cost of the Mettler Toledo. The Commonwealth acknowledged that the "replacement scale was of a different brand," but observed that the evidence established it "was purchased through Wegmans['] normal supplier" and "was the same in every respect except[ ] the manufacturer's name plate."
After hearing argument on the motion, the circuit court issued a letter opinion and order denying the motion to set aside the verdict. Agreeing with the Commonwealth, the circuit court determined that "[r]eplacement value is the amount it costs to replace an item," while "fair market value is concerned with the actual value of old items, including the[ir] age and condition." The circuit court further determined that under Code § 18.2-137, Because the evidence established that the Mettler Toledo "was purchased at a cost $4,090" and "was virtually identical" to the Bizerba, the circuit court concluded that "the Commonwealth's evidence was [ ] sufficient to support [Spratley's] conviction of felony destruction of property." The circuit court later sentenced Spratley to two years' imprisonment, with all but three months suspended.
The Court of Appeals affirmed Spratley's conviction by published opinion. Spratley v. Commonwealth , 69 Va. App. 314, 818 S.E.2d 823 (2018). In construing the phrase "fair market replacement value" in Code § 18.2-137, the Court of Appeals determined that "[t]he term ‘replacement’ contemplates the cost of obtaining a substitute item to take the place of the original, destroyed item." Id . at 320, 818 S.E.2d 823. "Therefore, the Commonwealth was permitted to prove felony destruction of property with evidence that the cost of replacing the original scale with an equivalent substitute was at least $1,000." Id . The Court of Appeals concluded that "[b]y establishing that Wegmans purchased a Mettler Toledo scale for $4,090 to replace the KH-100 Bizerba and that the two models were ‘virtually identical,’ the Commonwealth...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Commonwealth
... ... App. 608, 612, 674 S.E.2d 541 (2009) ). When we consider the meaning of particular language in context, the Court "adhere[s] to rules of statutory construction that discourage any interpretation of a statute that would render any part of it useless, redundant or absurd." Spratley v. Commonwealth , 298 Va. 187, 195-96, 836 S.E.2d 385 (2019) (quoting Owens v. DRS Auto. Fantomworks, Inc. , 288 Va. 489, 497, 764 S.E.2d 256 (2014) ). The meaning of the phrase "put up" has not been analyzed with regard to its use in the statute that proscribes defrauding an innkeeper. 2 ... ...
-
Haba v. Commonwealth
... ... Therefore, 73 Va.App. 290 we reject the appellant's proposed interpretation of the phrase "reasonable expectation of privacy" as used in Code 18.2-386.1. See Spratley v. Commonwealth , 298 Va. 187, 195-96, 836 S.E.2d 385 (2019) ("We adhere to rules of statutory construction that discourage any interpretation of a statute that would render any part of it useless, redundant or absurd." (quoting Owens v. DRS Auto. Fantomworks, Inc. , 288 Va. 489, 497, 764 S.E.2d ... ...
-
Tanner v. Commonwealth
... ... Instead, we seek to read statutory language so as to give effect to every word." Spratley v. Commonwealth, 298 Va. 187, , 836 S.E.2d 385, 389 (2019) (quoting Owens v. DRS Auto. FantomWorks, Inc., 288 Va. 489, 497, 764 S.E.2d 256 (2014) ). However, "[w]here multiple sections of a statute are inconsistent or ambiguous when read together, courts are required to harmonize any ambiguity or ... ...
-
Clayton v. Commonwealth
... ... Commonwealth , 65 Va. App. 312, 330, 777 S.E.2d 569 (2015) (alteration in original) (quoting Commonwealth v. McNeal , 282 Va. 16, 20, 710 S.E.2d 733 (2011) ). To the extent the issue requires statutory construction, we review the trial court's ruling de novo. Spratley v. Commonwealth , 298 Va. 187, 193, 836 S.E.2d 385 (2019). B. Code 53.1-203(5) is a strict liability offense. Clayton argues that the trial court erred in finding him guilty because the evidence was insufficient to establish that "he was in knowing possession of a chemical compound." Code ... ...