Commonwealth v. McWhirt

Fairfax County Circuit Court

Commonwealth v. McWhirt

22 Va. Cir. 48, 1990 Va. Cir. LEXIS 360

CourtFairfax County Circuit Court

DecidedAugust 27, 1990

DocketCase Nos. (Criminal) 66044, 66045, 66046

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 22 Va. Cir. 48 (Commonwealth v. McWhirt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Fairfax County Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. McWhirt, 22 Va. Cir. 48, 1990 Va. Cir. LEXIS 360 (Va. Super. Ct. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

By JUDGE ROSEMARIE ANNUNZIATA

The matter before the Court is defendant’s motion for a Bill of Particulars. The defendant is charged with embezzlement in violation of Va. Code § 18.2-111, under three separate indictments. Each indictment joins several distinct acts of embezzlement allegedly committed by the defendant within a six-month period. Joinder is permitted under Va. Code § 19.2-223. A motion for a bill of particulars should not be granted if the indictment sufficiently informs defendant of the charge to be tried. Harris v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 424 (1989). The case law is sparse on the specific issue raised by a prosecutorial choice to join a number of separate defalcations. However, based on a review of the indictments, the arguments of counsel, the relevant case law, and considering the defendant’s ability to prepare for trial in the absence of a more particularized statement, it is my view that the defendant’s motion should be granted. Casper v. Danville, 160 Va. 929 (1933); Challenor v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 789, 792-93 (1969); see also Mechling v. Slayton, 361 F. Supp. 770 (E.D. Va. 1973); U.S. v. Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc., 770 F.2d 399 (4th Cir. 1985). The Commonwealth is thus ordered to file a bill particularizing those charges as to which he expects to introduce supporting evidence, including specific dates, time, locations, and dollar values of the embezzlements where such information is available.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By JUDGE ROSEMARIE ANNUNZIATA

The matter before the Court is defendant’s motion for a Bill of Particulars. The defendant is charged with embezzlement in violation of Va. Code § 18.2-111, under three separate indictments. Each indictment joins several distinct acts of embezzlement allegedly committed by the defendant within a six-month period. Joinder is permitted under Va. Code § 19.2-223. A motion for a bill of particulars should not be granted if the indictment sufficiently informs defendant of the charge to be tried. Harris v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 424 (1989). The case law is sparse on the specific issue raised by a prosecutorial choice to join a number of separate defalcations. However, based on a review of the indictments, the arguments of counsel, the relevant case law, and considering the defendant’s ability to prepare for trial in the absence of a more particularized statement, it is my view that the defendant’s motion should be granted. Casper v. Danville, 160 Va. 929 (1933); Challenor v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 789, 792-93 (1969); see also Mechling v. Slayton, 361 F. Supp. 770 (E.D. Va. 1973); U.S. v. Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc., 770 F.2d 399 (4th Cir. 1985). The Commonwealth is thus ordered to file a bill particularizing those charges as to which he expects to introduce supporting evidence, including specific dates, time, locations, and dollar values of the embezzlements where such information is available.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 Va. Cir. 48, 1990 Va. Cir. LEXIS 360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-mcwhirt-vaccfairfax-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack