# Petition — Coleman v. Virginia

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385005_0665%3A1

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Petition
- **Published:** January 1, 1978
- **Citation:** 435 U.S. 997

## Text

‘ee preme Court, U. & “yd

FILED
| MAR /
IN THE _— ~osanepeemananel

Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1977

Barsara CoLeMAN, Petitioner,
v.

CoMMONWEALTH OF Vincini4, Respondent.

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA

Leo R. Anprews, Jr.
1400 N. Uhle St.
Arlington, Va.
Counsel for Petitioner

Davin Carty WoL
815 15th St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Of Counsel

33 (NS

Page
ETO ORS EDO TTT, WON OE CE 1
I SIS ccsccsnncscmnsteneninsicnentiniatinmnniagentnaiansdesemensenes 1
Statutory provision involved ...........s.ssccsccssssscssssssssssserees 2
eens ur OE. osiiisdnianiebaiasadiinandateatetaianies 2
Reasons for granting the Wit ...........csscssesssssesssesssssseees 8
STIIIIIIIII ss ccccnesuinnsanisecammisanponenepanubepanpunianicntimnedtenasitndaeanbésiiine 28
IIE ~ snscsincentincsemabuieniinsteainisitiaisiteninspipiieiasaaipidinsiisimnampstasie 29

CITATIONS
Cases:
Bain v. Commonwealth, 215 Va 89, 205 S.E. 2d 641
II” Uaceseadaniaiaceshaeadlt saat chdieesbdatdiiamediaiindiahinbatei iste aint 27
Heaton v. State, 56 ND 357, 217 NW 581 ..................... 27
Lee v. Commonwealth, 200 Va 233, 105 S.E. 2d 152
CE ARRRESER PEGI nerve sein var eere nc ns ers SD CUO 17
Revell v. Commonwealth, 215 Va 708, 213 S.E. 2d 756
TI, iateesdiccensieeesneieliabteadineeiladaaiaiadablhieat ce ienleh tas enetedeaiaeadans 17
Wadley v. Commonwealth, 98 Va 803, 35 S.E. 452
IIIT chia iacannhahaietaibae hea temehatiatiadesdiiaaaiatdinsaadaeddiniisaeiae 25
Webb v. Commonwealth, 204 Va 24, 129 S.E. 2d 22
STITT sicetcheinsinhadnihtichibbiinaesacinaniditase dadanibideaddbiomiaceens 17, 26
Whitlaw v. Commonwealth, 184 Va 910, 37 S.E. 2d 18
RRR erertm ere ere rane ie Nea REE eRe 25
Miscellaneous :
I 25
I le 25
FG IERIE PCRS eee AEN RDO OCOD 16
a a a ccnminnenissbaiminunbende’ 27
APPENDIX
Appendix A—Judgment of the Supreme Court of
Virginia of January 23, 1978 ..........ccccccsssscescsrescssecseeees 29

Appendix B—Denial by Supreme Court of Virginia of
RE nT 31

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1977

Bs cctiiinabillineiaaiiniiins

BarBara Coteman, Petitioner,
Vv.

CoMMONWEALTH oF Virern14, Respondent.

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA

The petitioner Barbara J. Coleman respectfully prays
that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment of.
the Supreme Court of Va. entered in this proceeding on
January 23, 1978.

JURISDICTION

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Va. was en-
tered on January 23, 1978. A timely petition for rehearing
was denied on March 3, 1978, and this petition for certiorari
was filed within 90 days of that date. This Court’s juris-
diction is invoked under the provisions of the Fifth, Sixth
and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether the evidence against petitioner was sufficient td
show that she embezzled petty cash funds from her em-
ployer. If not, petitioner was wrongfully convicted in
violation of her rights under the Fifth, Sixth and Four-
teenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

2
STATUTORY PROVISION INVOLVED

Section 18.2-111 Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended.
Embezzlement and Fraudulent Conversion

Embezzlement deemed larceny ; indictment ; Statement from
attorney for the Commonwealth.

If any person wrongfully and fraudulently uses, disposes
of, conceals or embezzles any money, bill, notes, check, order,

draft, bond, receipt, bill of lading or any other personal.

property tangible or intangible which he shall have received
for another or for his employer, principle or bailiff or by
virtue of his office, trust or employment, or which shall
have been entrusted or delivered to him by another or by
any court, corporation or company he shall be deemed guilty
of larceny thereof and may be indicted as for the larceny,
and proof of embezzlement under this section shall be suffi-
cient to sustain the charge. On the trial of every indictment
for larceny however, the defendant if he demands it shall
be entitled to a statement in writing from the attorney for
the Commonwealth designating the statute he intended to
rely upon to ask for conviction. Code 1950 18.1-109 (1960)
Ch. 358 1975 ce 14, 15.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Petitioner, Barbara Coleman, was convicted of two counts
of grand larceny embezzlement in Criminal Numbers C-11,
302 and C-11, 303 after a jury trial in Arlington County
Circuit Court.’ Upon her convictions of the above two

The indictment in C-11, 302 read that between the dates of
April 1, 1975 and September 30, 1975, . . . Barbara Coleman did
wrongfully and fraudulently use, dispose of, conceal or embezzle
money having a value of $100.00 or more, which she had received

“3

charges, she was sentenced to imprisonment for six months
and a $1000.00 fine for each charge. It is from these two
convictions that petitioner takes this appeal.

References will be to the transcript made before the
trial court (Tr.).

The main witness for the prosecution was Lee Sims, the
President of the Arthur Murray Studio. He testified that
during the period covered by the two indictments, Barbara
Coleman worked for the studio as a bookkeeper. (Tr. 3-5).
He described her duties as ‘‘taking care of the books . . . and
whatever was to be done, whatever was to take to Silver
Spring.’’ (Tr. 5). She was also responsible to take care
of the ‘‘petty cash and the cash box.’’ (Tr. 6). Mr. Sims
stated that Arthur Murray Studio in Arlington also had a
studio in Silver Spring, Maryland and a subsidiary in
Bethesda, Maryland. (Tr. 4). In describing the petty cash
setup, Mr. Sims stated that receipts were required to
account for disbursements from the petty cash. (Tr. 7-8).
Studio checks were cashed, and the money would then go
into the petty cash box. (Tr. 9). He stated that he and his
wife had permission to sign such checks, and that Mrs.
Coleman was also given approval for signing such checks.
(Tr. 10-11). He admitted that he never reviewed the bank
statements from the bank concerning the checks, nor both-

for her employer by virtue of her employment by Amsod of
Arlington, Inc., trading as Arthur Murray School of Dancing of
Arlington—a violation of Section 18. 1-109, Code of Virginia, 1950,
as amended. The indictment in C-11, 303 read the same, except the
dates for the period of the alleged embezzlment were from October
1, 1975 to March 2, 1976. Also, the violation alleged was Section
18. 2-111, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended.

+

ered to check the receipts concerning petty cash dispersal.
(Tr. Ll, 245-246).

Mr. Sims stated that the studio had Tuesday night cham-
pagne parties and ‘‘regular staff parties’’ on Fridays. (Tr.
12). He also stated that generally there were prizes given
‘and which we had to purchase.’’ (Tr. 14). Although he
couldn’t estimate what an amount of money would be spent
for Tuesday night parties, he approximated that ‘‘some-
where around $18.00 to $20.00 was spent on Friday Nights.”’
(Tr. 15-16). He also testified as to additional parties at
the studios during the Spring and Fall Festivals. (Tr. 16).
There were also other nights when the staff would get
together to ‘‘make plans for our party, which would be
in May, and we would be discussing the parties, the different
parties that we were going to hold and then the different
meetings which were to be held mostly on a Wednesday
night, and that would be mostly with the staff but also
some food, some small things were purchased, like things
from G.(W). (sic.) Murphy were also purchased .. .’’ (Tr.
18-19).

Over rigorous objections, which was initially sustained,
(Tr. 22-25), Mr. Sims was allowed to testify as to the
amount that petty cash expenditures increased (in percent-
age figures) when Mrs. Coleman became a bookkeeper.’
According to Mr. Sims, however, after Mrs. Coleman left,
the increase in petty cash increased even further to 150
percent. (Tr. 25).

Mr. Sims was then shown a number of receipts attached

2 Mr. Sims testified that there was ‘‘an increase of over a hundred
percent.’’ (Tr. 25).

D

to carbons of checks representing checks written by Mr.
Sims, Mrs. Sims and Barbara Coleman, legally signing
Mr. Sims’ name, to provide money for the petty cash
funds. Mr. Sims then proceeded, through 188 pages of
transcript, to review the petty cash receipts, attempting to
identify what they were, and in some cases, concluding
whether certain receipts were ‘‘legitimate’’ or ‘‘illegiti-
mate.’’ (Tr. 31-219). He admitted on cross-examination,
however, that he was away from the Arlington Studio most
of the time, and never bothered to look at the petty cash
receipts. (Tr. 245-246).

Upon his later testimony, Mr. Sims indicated further
that the first time he examined the petty cash receipts was
with his accountant, when he suspected something was wrong
and asked his accountant to bring from Houston the carbons
of the checks with the receipts attached. He and the account-
ant then disassembled the receipts and re-arranged them as
to ‘‘illegitimate,’’ stapled in front of the checks, and ‘‘legiti-
mate,’’ stapled in back of the checks. He repeated the same

procedures when reviewing them with the prosecutor,
thereby further re-arranging the receipts. (Tr. 483-484).

Mr. Sims’ tesimony was eventually followed by the testi-
mony of Mrs. Judy Sims, Lee Sims’ wife. She testified that
she was an officer of the Arthur Murray’s Studio Corpora-
tion, ie. Secretary. (Tr. 323). She described her duties at
the school as training the dance instructors, being ‘‘re-
sponsible for the scenery in the studio . . . and for some 70
or 80 students.’’ (Tr. 339). She testified that the studio
had Tuesday night and Friday night parties, (Tr. 340) and
in connection therewith food and beverages would be pur-
chased—the food being mainly purchased at Grand Union.
(Tr. 341-342). She stated that the champagne was purchased

6

at the Safeway Store on Wilson Boulevard and other
‘‘random places’’ on Wilson Boulevard. (Tr. 349). She
admitted that several of the studio parties were on Satur-
days. (Tr. 350). Different staff members would make the
different purchases for the studio parties, as well as office
and decorations purchases. (Tr. 350-351). In reference to
the petitioner, Mrs. Sims stated that Mrs. Coleman ran
errands for the studio and used her car to do so. Mrs.
Coleman’s main errands were to make the bank deposits.
(Tr. 352). She also picked up Lee Sims’ prescriptions at
Peoples Drugs. (Tr. 353). Mrs. Sims testified that she
herself made purchases for the studio. (Tr. 353-354).

A number of other witnesses testified for the Common-
wealth. Robert Daymde, a Coca Cola route salesman, (Tr.
268), testified that he regularly delivered Cokes to the studio
and placed them in a vending machine located in the studio.
(Tr. 268-272). He stated that Mrs. Coleman would then pay
him for delivering the Coca Cola. (Tr. 272). He identified
one of the Coca Cola receipts, previously shown to Mr.
Sims, as an example of a paid receipt he would have given
to Mrs. Coleman. (Tr. 270).

Six present or former employees of the Arthur Murray
Studio in Arlington testified for the Commonwealth. Each
of them knew petitioner as the bookkeeper at Arthur
Murray Studio. Generally, they testified that they made
various purchases for the studio, presented receipts for the
purchases and were reimbursed from petty cash by Mrs.
Coleman. These witnesses were Charlton G. Bradshaw,
Elizabeth Harrison, Gina Viglous, William A. Stufflebeen,
Carol Baker and Thomas Snow.

The Commonwealth also presented the testimony of

7
several persons from stores in the Arlington area, who were
shown receipts introduced into evidence from their respec-
tive stores. These store representatives, by codes contained
on the receipts, were able to identify what the purchased
items were. The stores involved were Pier I, Best Products,
Hecht Co., and Sears. The items included women’s clothing

and apparel, (Tr. 421-427) jewelry, (Tr. 417-420) and hard-
ware supplies, (Tr. 505-513).

After the Commonwealth rested its case, the defense
moved to strike, based on the insufficiency of the evidence to
prove that petitioner had embezzled from her employer.
The motion was denied.

The defense presented the testimony of Mr. Jay Haas
(sic).* Mr. Hawkes testified that he met Mrs. Coleman while
both were employed at the Arthur Murray Dance Studio in
Arlington (Tr. 514-515), and that she was ‘‘the most im-
portant support employee of the staff.’’ (Tr.516). While Mrs.
Coleman was still employed at the Arlington Studio, Mr.
Hawkes moved to the Silver Spring studio. (Tr. 517). He
still maintained connection with the Ariington studio, how-
ever, because he ‘‘was the director and instructor for all
of their activities because we did team-up at parties and
contests and we would come in once in a while, we would
come in and join them and we would be at the Arlington
studio... and combine our parties.’’ (Tr. 518). In reference
to the Tuesday night parties, Mr. Hawkes stated that ‘‘there
have been champagne parties on Tuesday night for guests,
and they would bring friends for trial lessons, and the
students themselves would hold the dance instructions and
teach a little bit and do a bit of dancing and lessons them-

a

5 His actual name is Jay Hawkes.

selves, and there would be food and champagne to enjoy.’’
(Tr. 520). He also testified that he made various purchases
for the studio, such as refreshments, decorations, prizes,
supplies, and records. (Tr. 525). He also testified that he
was compensated for his gasoline for running errands for
the Arthur Murray Studio. (Tr. 523-533).

After resting his case, counsel for petitioner then renewed
his motion to strike for insufficient evidence, which motion
was denied.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

The decision of the Supreme Court of Virginia upholding
petitioner’s conviction in this case on evidence clearly in-
sufficient to establish her guilt violates her fundamental
rights under the fifth, sixth and fourteenth amendments of
the U.S. Constitution.

The trial judge erred in holding that the evidence was
sufficient to convict petitioner of grand larceny embezzle-
ment.

The main thrust of the Commonwealth, in its contention
that petitioner embezzled petty cash funds of Arthur
Murray Studio, was that many receipts covering purchases
made from petty cash funds were phony receipts—not rep-
resenting legitimate purchases connected with the mainten-
ance and operation of the studio. The Commonwealth relied,
as its sole source of proof in that regard, on the testimony
of Mr. Lee Sims, the President and owner of the Arthur
Murray Studio. Mr. Sims, throughout his testimony, did
little more than read each receipt shown to him as to the
amount of the receipt and identified the store involved.
Often he showed that he had no idea what the receipts were

9

for. For example, Mr. Sims testified in regard to Drug
Fair receipts:

‘** All right. One, that one is for $11.20; another one
for $11.95; another Drug Fair receipt, and this is for—
another one which is right after the other one—another
one for $8.05. I don’t know where it came from.’’*
(Tr. 36).

On other receipts, petitioner often merely added that they
were illegitimate without any further explanation. In regard
to several G. C. Murphy receipts, Mr. Sims was asked by the
prosecutor ; ‘‘ Now are all the receipts that are in your hand,
you claim them to be invalid?’’ To which, Mr. Sims replied,
‘‘That’s correct.’’ At another occasion, in identifying Com-
monwealth’s Exhibit B as being illegitimate, Mr. Sims
stated ;

‘*What is Exhibit B? This is a bad one, and that is
about it. There is nothing to indicate what the money

was used for. It just says visitor’s expenditures.’’
(Tr. 45).

In regard to a Coke machine receipt for Cokes placed in
the studio Coke machine, the trial judge asked Mr. Sims why
he considered the receipt ‘‘bad.’’ Mr. Sims gave the incred-
ible answer that ‘‘(T)here is nothing to indicate what it is
for, whether it is for business or not.’’ (Tr. 52).

In fact, after the lunch break and before Mr. Sims con-
tinued his testimony, the trial judge indicated that Mr. Sims
testimony to that point had not proven ‘‘any larceny here,”’
because of the conclusionary nature of Mr. Sims’ testimony,
such as ‘‘we don’t buy this from Peoples and we did buy

* See also Tr. 40 (Hair Shop) ; 41 (Grand Union) ; 44-45 (Drug
Fair) ; 48 (Peoples Drug) ; 133 (Grand Union).

10

some, but then there is some crepe paper that was bought.’’
(Tr. 54-55). The judge was also troubled that in some cases
not only could Mr. Sims not say with particularity why the
receipts were ‘‘bad,’’ but he could not identify what some
receipts were. The Judge stated:

‘* And, for example, here you have 5-F,, and you don’t
know where that was from and—how ‘re you going to
say where that is from?’’ (Tr. 56).

The following colloquy between the prosecutor and the
Court then took place:

MR. MELSON: Well, I can show that the checks were
invalid. Now, looking further to the Fourth Circuit, .. .
and that is in connection with reasonable evidence
which may be admissible to the discrepency of embezzle-
ment, but the evidence will show that the employment is
admissible because it is the only way to show the em-
bezzlement until we have all of our witnesses.

THE COURT: Yes, but he is the witness for that and
his testimony is not good enough.

MR. MELSON: But that is not the only witness, that is
not all of the evidence that I have.

THE COURT: But I don’t know, you don’t know who
the receipts are and all it does is to show and state the
amount, so—how are you going to say, what are you
going to say about that? (Tr. 57-58).

Despite the Court’s misgivings concerning the adequacy
of Mr. Sims’ testimony, Mr. Sims continued, in his ‘‘run-

down’’ of each receipt, to read each receipt, stating in some
cases they were ‘‘bad’’ or ‘‘illegitimate.’’ ®

Seg. Tr. 77-78; Tr. 82:
Q. And what does that indicate on that receipt?
A. I don’t know, but. . . is $2.84 and ... the 5th of June, 1975.

ll

The unreliability of Mr. Sims conclusionary testimony
showed through in several ways as the trial developed. First
of all, it became clear that Mr. Sims had very little touch
with the day to day operation of the Arlington studio,
particularly the purchasing of food, beverages and supplies.
For instance, when asked by the prosecutor about a Giant
Food receipt for $32.96, Mr. Sims responded that ‘‘it would
be more than we would spend for a party at that particular
time and which we would have bought everything.’’ He
further added, however, ‘‘It is a guess, I know, and I am
not even sure that we would shop there, but it would be
more than we would spend for one of our parties. (Tr. 156-
157). The Court then asked: ‘‘How do you know where you

THE COURT: What is wrong with it?
THE WITNESS : It is on a Saturday.
THE COURT: Well, you don’t know?
THE WITNESS: I don’t know. (Tr. 105).
Q. Would you go on, please?
A. Yes, (b) Exhibit (b) is $1.55, that is for Lerner’s Shop.
Do you want me to say it is unauthorized?
THE COURT: You tell me if it is unauthorized.
THE WITNESS: Well, I don’t buy ladies apparel or hosiery.
THE COURT: Well, it is hosiery?
THE WITNESS: Well, whatever they sell, whatever they sell
at Lerner’s Shops, I have no need for it. (Tr. 105).
Also Tr. 128, 133 (Grand Union) ; 151 (Safeway) ; Tr. 155:
‘*Exhibit (m)—well, it looks to me like it might be an illegiti-
mate receipt from Virginia Hardware’’.. .
A. Here they are for keys for $2.98, and then there is $3.33,
so that would be for doors, or it looks like the whole thing
came out to $13.33.
THE COURT: Have you any personal knowledge?
THE WITNESS: I have no personal knowledge.
THE COURT: You have no ideas, none at all ?
THE WITNESS: No, none whatsoever. (Tr. 154-155).
Also see Tr. 189, 193, 238.

12

would shop?’’ Mr. Sims responded; ‘‘Well, generally we
would shop in the area. I don’t know, because the employees,
not being—they would go together and pick up whatever I
wanted and whatever liquor. Also, they would go to the
closest place that they can get.’’ (Tr. 157). He admitted he
didn’t go out to purchase food for the studio and that he
did not ‘‘on a regular basis’’ purchase other items, such as
liquor. (Tr. 229). He also admitted the janitor often went
out for studio supplies, and that Mr. Sims didn’t know
where he went to get them. (Tr. 240). He admitted that he
never bothered to review the receipts and daily expenditures
from the petty cash fund. He added that ‘‘I never noticed
whether there was a problem or not. I was running three
schools at the same time.’’ He admitted that he was out of
the Arlington school most of the time. (Tr. 246).

Secondly, Mr. Sims’ testimeny concerning studio pur-
chases was contradicted by other witnesses on a number of
occasions. For instance, Mr. Sims, in reviewing receipts,
particularly involving food and drink purchases, ‘‘disal-
lowed’’ such receipts when purchased on Saturdays, or any
other day except Tuesdays or Fridays when they had their
regular studio parties. For instance, Mr. Sims testified at
one point on direct examination:

‘*Well, I would say this is from Safeway, this is a
Safeway receipt for $10.96. I would say that was from
the 17th of May, that would have been on a Saturday,
and we have no reason to have a transaction on a
Saturday.’’ (Tr. 62).

At another point he stated ‘‘. .. we do not do anything from
our business on Saturday.’’ (Tr. 73). In reviewing another
receipt dated September 13, 1975, Mr. Sims stated, ‘‘ Your
Honor, again this is on a Saturday—I don’t know.”’ (Tr.

13

145). On cross-examination, he stated, ‘‘ We do not buy food
at Grand Union on Saturday,’’ and that as ‘‘a general rule’’
no food was bought on Thursday. However, Mr. Sims was
then shown a food receipt for Thursday, April 3, 1975,
identified by Miss Gina’s handwriting as being her purchase.
(Tr. 257). Since Miss Gina regularly purchased food for
the studio, (Tr. 101-102; 230), Mr. Sims had to accept that
receipt as ‘‘legitimate.’’ (Tr. 257). He also had to accept
as ‘‘legitimate’’ another Thursday Grand Union food re-
ceipt, since it had his handwriting on it—that receipt was
also torn—a factor that seemed to convince Mr. Sims that
other receipts were ‘‘illegitims.te.’’ (Tr. 280-281; 46; 51-52).
He was shown another Grand Union food receipt, with Miss
Gina’s handwriting on it, for Wednesday, April 16, 1975.
He had to reconsider it as ‘‘legitimate’’ because it had her
handwriting on it. (Tr. 281-282). He was then shown another
Thursday food receipt (April 10th), and asked whether he
considered the receipt to be ‘‘legitimate’’ or ‘‘illegitimate.’’
He responded, ‘‘I don’t have the least idea.’’ Another
Thursday food receipt was shown to him (April 17th) and
he concluded that the receipt was ‘‘borderline.’’ (Tr. 282-
283).

In regard to Saturday studio purchases that Mr. Sims
testified never were made, his wife, Judy Sims, admitted
that the studio operated on Saturdays, and that purchases
were made if there was a party. (Tr. 350). She denied that
the staff would make studio purchases on Saturdays. (Tr.
350). However, Mr. Bradshaw, called as a Commonwealth
witness, went much further in his testimony about Saturday
purchases. He testified on direct examination that ‘‘there
were other times on a Saturday and then sometimes on a
Sunday we would usually get together and food would have

14

to be purchased on a Saturday.’’ (Tr. 387). He also testified
about Wednesday parties and D.U. (Destination Unknown)
parties on Friday and Saturday nights.* (Tr. 402). Mr.
Bradshaw’s testimony, it is submitted, is particularly reli-
able since he was an assistant manager under Mr. Sims at
the Arlington studio and ‘‘purchased everything’’ for the
studio, including liquor, champagne, food, hardware sup-
plies, ete. (Tr. 385-386). Mrs. Elizabeth Harrison, the night
receptionist, remembered decorations purchased on Satur-
days (Tr. 414) ; another reliable witness, Gina Viglous (Miss
Gina), the person who regularly purchased food and drinks
for the studio, testified as to purchases on Saturdays, ‘‘be-
cause we have some parties there on Saturday.’’ She also
admitted, contrary to Judy Sims, that staff rallies took place
on Saturdays when beer would be purchased. (Tr. 438).
William Stufflebeen, another dance instructor, also testified
as to Saturday food purchases for special parties. Tr.
444-445).

On several occasions, Mr. Sims’ testimony was incon-
sistent within itself. At one point he is shown a Peoples
Drug receipt, and asked what items the studio would pur-
chase there. He responded that ‘‘the main thing that would
be purchased would be paper or something like that, and I
myself personally would not purchase any of these items.
Mrs. Coleman would have made that purchase for me.’’
(Tr. 48-49). At another point, he states that he can’t think
of anything that would have been purchased from Peoples
Drug. (Tr. 53). It was this inconsistency that the Judge
commented upon in his remarks to counsel outside the

* He also testified about studio picnics and outings for 90 people,
and cookouts ‘‘in the parking lot.’’ (Tr. 402, 396).

15

presence of the jury. (Tr. 54). At one point, the prosecutor
showed Mr. Sims a particular check made out for petty cash
and asked him if his signature was on the check. He said no.
He was then asked ‘‘about the signature on any of those
checks (all of the other numerous petty cash checks in
evidence). He stated ‘‘not authorized.’’ But when the Court
asked him ‘‘ Are you saying now that you did not authorize
your signature to be used?’’ Mr. Sims quickly admitted that
‘*T would have to say—because I did authorize Mrs. Cole-
man to go ahead and write my signature.’’ (Tr. 59-60).

Another interesting feature of Mr. Sims testimony, which
points out the vague and arbitrary character of the testi-
mony, was his sitting down, first with his accountant and
then with the prosecutor, months after Mrs. Coleman had
left his employ, to review all the receipts from April 1975,
to March 1976, and decide which receipts were ‘‘legitimate,’’
‘‘illegitimate,’’ or ‘‘borderline.’’ (Tr. 308-310; 483-484). On
cross-examination, concerning his ‘‘selection process,’’ he
was questioned about receipts from Giant Food. It was
pointed out to him that some Giant Food receipts were in the
‘‘legitimate’’ pile (stapled to the front of the petty cash
check carbons) and others were in the ‘‘illegitimate’’ pile
(stapled to the backs of the check carbons). He responded:

‘*Yes, some of them are considered good and some of
them are considered borderline and some of them are
considered impossible.’’

When asked how could he make these distinctions, he
replied :

‘*By —.e amount, the date, the fact that we don’t always
purchase for parties every week and at much less than
the checks have been written two days apart, two days
apart on each one of them.’’

16

(Tr. 285). This is the ‘‘authoritative’’ testimony from one
who was hardly at the Arlington studio, (Tr. 246) who had
earlier responded that he wasn’t sure whether his employees
shopped at Giant (Tr. 156-157), and that he wasn’t sure how
much was spent for the Tuesday guest parties. (Tr. 14-16).’

His wife, Judy Sims, added very little to show that Mrs.
Coleman had embezzled the petty cash funds. She admitted
she never bothered to look at the petty cash checks with the
receipts attached for any irregularities before she signed
the checks.* (Tr. 332). In fact, incredibly, she testified that
she never knew that her husband gave Mrs. Coleman author-
ity to sign his name to checks—which Mrs. Coleman was
doing, not only for petty cash checks but for payroll checks
—in order to get the employees paid on time. (Tr. 356, Tr.
225-226). Mrs. Sims explained that ‘‘whenever we have a
bookkeeper, I try as much as possible, I try to stay away
from that part and I don’t have anything to do with the
bookkeeper.’’ (Tr. 356).

As stated in 26 Am Jur 2d, Sec. 48, ‘‘the burden of proof
at a trial for embezzlement rests, as in other criminal cases,
upon the prosecution to establish every material allegation
against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. . . . The
law presumes a defendant on trial to be innocent of an
embezzlement alleged, and nothing is presumed or taken
by implication against him.’’ (At p. 601). To constitute the
statutory crime of embezzlement, it is necessary to prove
that an accused wrongfully appropriated to his own use or

7 When asked by the prosecutor what was spent for the parties,
he testified that he couldn’t ‘‘check that because there is no approxi-
mate as to the cost.’’ Tr. 15).

§ Mr. and Mrs. Sims had the authority to sign the studio checks.
(Tr. 10).

17-

benefit, with the intent to deprive the owner thereof, the
propery of another which has been entrusted to him by
reason of his employment or office. (emphasis added).
Revell v Commonwealth, 215 Va. 708, 213 S.E. 2d 756, 757
(1975) ; Webb v Commonwealth, 204 Va. 24, 34, 129 S.E. 2d
22, 30 (1963) ; Lee v Commonwealth, 200 Va. 233, 235, 236,
105 S.E. 2d 152, 154 (1958). It is submitted that the Com-
monwealth has failed to prove that petitioner converted
petty cash funds to her own use. The Commonwealth has
failed to prove that the ‘‘illegitimate’’ or ‘‘borderline’’
receipts were Mrs. Coleman’s receipts and that she placed
these receipts in the petty cash account to cover up a conver-
sion of the funds. With the exception of two gasoline
receipts with her license tags written on the receipts (Tr.
108-110), (Tr. 149), the Commonwealth failed to show that
petitioner supplied any of the receipts in evidence. One
woman from Discount Drugs testified that she had seen
Mrs. Coleman several times in Discount Drugs but thought
that it had been recently—within the last four or five
months from the date of her testimony (She testified on
April 7, 1977). Barbara Coleman had left the employ of
Arthur Murray Studio in early March 1976. (Tr. 316, Tr.
5).° Furthermore, a great number of the ‘‘illegitimate’’
receipts were food and beverage receipts. Most of those
receipts were from Grand Union, the place where employees
of Arthur Murray Studio frequently shopped for the studio
parties and staff meetings. (Tr. 429, 447). There were also
receipts from several grocery stores in the area, including
Safeway, A & P, and Giant. Champagne was often bought
at both Safeway and Grand Union ‘‘and other random

® She also testified that Mrs. Coleman was not a regular customer,
and had seen her four or five times. (Tr. 317-318).

18

places on Wilson Boulevard.”’ (Tr. 349, 446). Mr. Bradshaw,
the Assistant Manager at the Arlington studio when peti-
tioner worked there, remembered that on Tuesday evenings
‘‘between $20.00 and $35.00 would be spent on champagne
for the guest parties. He added that ‘‘we had pretty good
guest parties.’’ (Tr. 386). Mr. Bradshaw further stated that
food was bought for Friday night, ‘‘sometimes for the staff
if we had a get-together,’’ that there were other times ‘‘ food
would have to be purchased on a Saturday,’’ and that during
the two promotional times of the year ‘‘there was about
$50.00 worth of food . . . depending on the size of the party,
some $60.00 worth or even $40.00 worth of food.’’ (Tr. 387).
He also mentioned going over to a Giant store in the area
for ice.’ (Tr. 398) Miss Gina testified that just for the
Tuesday night parties, anywhere from $40.00 to $50.00
would be spent for the food. (Tr. 433). Certainly, all of the
grocery receipts determined ‘‘illegitimate’’ by Mr. Sims
were consistent with the amount of grocery shopping done
by various persons for the studio for their parties, festivals,
staff meetings, outings and what-not.

In regard to the Coca Cola receipts, the Commonwealth
totally failed to show that these receipts were ‘‘illegiti-
mate.’’ The Coca Cola salesman testified that most of the
time he would hand Mrs. Coleman a bill for the cases of Coke
that he had just placed in the studio Coke machine. She
would then pay him the total amount of the bill, assumedly
from petty cash, and he would leave the bill with her as the
receipt. Most of the time he would not touch the money in the
machine, so that, assumedly, Mrs. Coleman would later place

10 Mr. Sims admitted there was food bought by the studio from
Giant. (Tr. 285).

19

the money from the Coke machine into the petty cash box.
Once in a while, when she was too busy, she would ask him
to get the money and bring it to her. He would ds so, but
what she did with that money, he couldn’t say. All he knew
was that he was paid what was owed to him. (Tr. 272-273,
276-277). At certain times he would add the rental cost on
the bill, and of course the money to pay that had to come
out of petty cash. (Tr. 274-275). Certainly, if she were plac-
ing the money from the Coke machine into petty cash to
reimburse it, and there was no evidence to say she was not,
there was no wrongful conversion of money.

There were a number of receipts from G. C. Murphy’s.
Murphy’s was very close to the studio and easily accessible
to all of the staff. (Tr. 399, 448-449). It was also clear from
the testimony that a variety of items were frequently bought
from Murphy’s, including office supplies, pencils, pads,
prizes, and decorations. Mr. Bradshaw, who now heads up
the Bethesc> Arthur Murray Studio and has been associated
with Arthur Murray as a ‘‘dance instructor, director, coun-
selor, and assistant manager’’ (Tr. 385-386), stated that he
‘‘used to decorate the studio, quite frequently, at the ten-
cent store (G. C. Murphy) and Hechts.’’ (Tr. 399). Mrs.
Elizabeth Harrison remembered that the studio staff bought
‘*streamers of all kinds, all kinds of gimmicks and things like
that.’’ She added, ‘‘it seems to me that they were always
decorating’’ and that decorations were obtained from vari-
ous places. (Tr. 413-414). Mr. Stufflebeen purchased door
prizes at Murphy’s and ‘‘ali kinds of garbage.’’ (Tr. 448).
In view of the above mentioned testimony, it borders on the
ridiculous for Mr. Sims to ‘‘disallow’’ receipts from G. C.
Murphy—even receipts as small as 73 cents. (Tr. 146-147).

From the testimony of several of the employees, it was

20

also clear that the petitioner purchased prescribed medi-
cines for Mr. Sims—particularly at Peoples Drug on Wilson
Boulevard. Mrs. Sims so stated (Tr. 353) as did Mr. Brad-
shaw (Tr. 394-395). Although Mr. Sims stated he paid for
the drugs out of his pocket, there were a number of drug
receipts from Peoples in petty cash. (Tr. 294-295). It should
be kept in mind, however, that Mr. Sims also was reimbursed
from petty cash for his beers and food at Keyhole Restau-
rant and Little Dell Restaurant, as well as a personal trip
to Forth Worth, Texas. (Tr. 343, 344, 302)."’ Mr. Sims also
admitted that paper supplies may have been purchased at
Peoples. (Tr. 49).

It is also clear from the testimony that hardware supplies
for the maintenance of the studio had to be purchased. Mr.
Sims admitted that the janitor would buy maintenance
supplies for the studio, and that Mr. Sims didn’t know where
the janitor went to buy these supplies. (Tr. 240). Initially,
Mr. Sims answered, when asked whether there were any
receipts from Sears which were authorized, ‘‘i would say
probably not.’’ In the next breath, however, he admitted that
Mr. Stufflebeen went to Sears to buy some supplies. (Tr.
293). He admitted that ‘‘at one time”’ studio floodlights were
purchased at Sears. (Tr. 293-294). In fact, the Common-
wealth had to withdraw several of the ‘‘illegitimate’’ Sears
receipts '? which reflected studio maintenance supplies. (Tr.
508-510). Such flip-flopping by the Commonwealth as what

11 When asked about the trip to Fort Worth, Mr. Sims responded,
‘*T believe I have the right to take money from the corporation.’’
(Tr. 302).

12 Tnitially dubbed ‘‘illegitimate,’’ of course, by Mr. Sims.

21

may be legitimate, borderline, or illegitimate receipts shows
the tenuous nature of their evidence.”

In regard to other receipts from Pier I, Evans Jewelers,
and other stores, it was also established in the Common-
wealth’s case that prizes in connection with studio parties
were bought—some expensive and some cheap. Mr. Sims
admitted prizes were purchased by the studio and that he
sometimes gave checks for their purchase. (Tr. 243-244).
He admitted that his wife purchased a door prize at Pier I
on One occasion,* and that other purchases, particularly a
camera and record album were purchased at Evans Jew-
elers.° (Tr. 287). At first hand he denied jewelry was
bought, but then when he was shown receipt from the
‘‘legitimate’’ pile for $20.00 for two rings from Steins, next
door to the studio, he conceded that the receipt may be
‘“borderline,’’ because it was purchased ‘‘right near our
victory party.’’ (Tr. 287-288). Mrs. Sims testified that if any
of the instructors had a need to purchase jewelry, they
would get the money from petty cash. (Tr. 358). Jay Hawkes
also mentioned that prizes were bought. (Tr. 525).

There were a number of ABC liquor receipts, most of
which were considered by Mr. Sims to be ‘‘legitimate.”’
There was abundant testimony that a jot of liquor was
bought during the year, particularly on Friday nights. (Tr.

‘8 The prosecutor removed from further consideration one receipt
as being ‘‘ possible’’ (legitimate). (Tr. 509).

14 Miss Gina also recalled going to Pier I on one occasion for
decorations. (Tr. 435). Mrs. Harrison testified the staff would go
to Pier I for studio decorations. (Tr. 414). Pier I was located just
behind the studio. (Tr. 383).

** Mr. Sims had earlier testified that he had never authorized
any purchases from Evans. (Tr. 166-167).

22

429, 386). Yet Mr. Sims ‘‘disallowed’’ any liquor purchases
in D.C., despite the fact that several instructors bought
liquor for the studio in D.C.—across Key Bridge,’* (Tr.
435-436, 468) and Mr. Hawkes and Mr. Bradshaw traveled
to Arlington frequently from the Bethesda and Silver
Spring studios, and also purchased food and beverages,
particularly for the combined parties of the three studios.
(Tr. 395, 522-525). Quite possibly the D.C. liquor receipts
were theirs, or Mr. and Mrs. Sims, who also traveled in
D.C., between the Arlington and Silver Spring studios.
(Tr. 295-296 ; Tr. 337).

There were several receipts from Lerners and Hechkts for
clothes. Mr. Bradshaw stated that occasionally clothing
would be bought for party skits or for the show case. (Tr.
390; 398). Mr. Hawkes also testified about clothes for skits
or costume parties, such as the hobo party. He added that
when ‘‘the holiday time came, there was enough clothes so
that we could carry it through.’’ (Tr. 521). Even Mr. Sims
mentioned something about the ‘‘clothes for my studio.’’
(Tr. 236). Of course, the Commonwealth never precluded
the possibility that several of the clothing items, particular-
ly from Hechts and Sears, did not represent personal pur-
chases by Mrs. Sims. The Hecht Company purchases were
in Arlington and Silver Spring, where two of the studios
are located. (Tr. 421-427). Additionally, Mrs. Sims made
the curious statement that ‘‘normally we (Mr. and Mrs.
Sims) don’t write anything for our personal business
through our corporate account (which includes petty cash).
Normally that is done through our personal account. (em-

16 Thomas Snow testified he never purchased the liquor at the
Virginia ABC store, but that generally he purchased the liquor
in D.C. (Tr. 468).

phasis added.) (Tr. 345). Such testimony implies that occa-
sionally the Sims made personal purchases charged to the
corporate account. The Commonwealth never did show
those particular receipts to Mrs. Sims for her to deny that
they were personal items purchased by her. In addition,
both Mr. and Mrs. Sims admitted that the receipts from
petty cash were used as a basis for obtaining tax deductions
for studio expenses, so that their personal expenditures,
included among the genuine business expenditures, would
represent a tax benefit. (Tr. 304-305; Tr. 345). Mrs. Sims
stated:

‘*Well, as far as our corporation is concerned, we
may write a check for whatever we choose to and then
“ur accountant at the end of the year dves the taxes
and he decides what is deductible and what is not.
Normally we don’t write anything for our personal
business through our corporation account. Normally
that is done through our personal account.’’ (Tr. 345).

It was also clear that electronic equipment and music
(records and tape decks) were purchased at various and
sundry locations. (Tr. 386). Mr. Bradshaw testified that he
purchased records and sometimes he would buy things for
the studio when he was out of the Arlington area. (Tr. 388,
395-396). Mr. Sims, on the other hand, ‘‘disallowed’’ a re-
ceipt for the purchase of records because ‘‘I don’t buy
records at Lord and Taylor.’’ (Tr. 187).

In regard to the gasoline receipts, the evidence strongly
supported the fact that appellant ran a lot of errands for the
studio and Mr. Sims. She made the bank deposits for the
studio (Tr. 352) ; she picked up Mr. Sims’ prescriptions at
Peoples and his drycleaning; (Tr. 353; 458) and she went to
the printers. (Tr. 353). Mr. Bradshaw testified that Mrs.

24

Coleman ran errands between the Arlington, Bethesda and
Silver Spring studios. (Tr. 391-392). Mr. Hawkes testified
that many times she helped Mr. Hawkes ‘‘solve and clean
up’’ his problems even when he was the dance director at
the Silver Spring studio. (Tr. 517-518). Mr. Bradshaw testi-
fied that in conversations with petitioner, she felt she was
entitled to gas reimbursements ‘‘because she did do a lot
of traveling back and forth.’’ (Tr. 393). He added that
‘*there were many, many little things that she (petitioner)
would be doing on the way by there, on the way to the bank,
and she would stop and pick them up or even make an extra
trip to pick them up for the studio.’’ (Tr. 394). On re-direct
examination by the Commonwealth, Mr. Bradshaw stated
that he thought Mrs. Coleman said ‘‘she had made some
definite arrangements to get a couple of dollars for gaso-
line... .’’ He testified that she had said at some later point
that she is ‘‘getting it now’’ (gasoline reimbursement).
(Tr. 403-404).

To lend credence to the fact that Mrs. Coleman was
allowed to purchase gasoline to reimburse her use of her
own car for studio business, several other employees testi-
fied that they were reimbursed for gas for errands run for
the studio. Carol Baker testified that Miss Gina received
$5.00 extra for going to the store on Fridays. (Tr. 456-457).
Mr. Hawkes testified that he received gas money for errands
run for the studio. (Tr. 533). In view of all the errands that
petitioner did run for Mr. Sims and the studio, it is clear
that she was entitled to be reimbursed for her gas. Even if
Mr. Sims did not give his approval for such expenditures,
it is clear that petitioner was entitled to it. It has been held
that the conversion of property under a bona fide claim of
ownership is not embezzlement. To constitute embezzlement

there must be a fraudulent intent to deprive the owner of his
property. Wadley v Commonwealth, 98 Va. 803, 35 S.E. 452
(1900) ; Whitlow v Commonwealth, 184 Va. 910, 37 S.E. 2d
18 (1946). Here, there could be no fraudulent intent, if
petitioner felt she was entitled to reimbursement for gaso-
line for running errands for the studio and her boss. Again,
however, it should be stated that petitioner was only posi-
tively identified with two gasoline receipts. Whether Mr. or
Mrs. Sims or other instructors were responsible for the
other gasoline receipts was left open to conjecture.

In view of all of the above, it is submitted that the Com-
monwealth failed to show that petitioner acted with a
fraudulent intent ‘‘to deprive the other of his property.’’ A
criminal intent has been held to be essential. 26 Am. Jur.
2d, See. 19, p. 570. Also the Commonwealth has failed to
show a fraudulent conversion of property. 26 Am. Jur. 2d.,
Sec. 22, p. 572. As indicated before, the Commonwealth has
failed to prove that the receipts in evidence were petition-
er’s. It is clear from the evidence that many of the receipts
came from other studio staff members, as well as Mr. and
Mrs. Sims. There were many ABC Liquor tabs, but Mrs.
Coleman didn’t buy the liquor; there were many grocery
receipts, but Mrs. Coleman didn’t do the grocery shopping;
there were several grocery receipts for Saturdays, but Mrs.
Coleman didn’t work on Saturdays. In fact, Mrs. Coleman
left work on weekdays at 5:00 p.m. and was not involved in
the running of parties, festivals and the like. (Tr. 224). The
Commonwealth tried to show that every receipt came direct-
ly to Mrs, Coleman for her to scrutinize. But there was
testimony that a number of purchases were made in the
evening and receipts were left in envelopes or in Mrs.
Colman’s desk by the night receptionist. (Tr. 413, 437-438).

26

Of course, it was not likely that petitioner would question
receipts, particularly for personal items, turned over to her
by her employers, Mr. and Mrs. Sims.

The Commonwealth has failed also to show that any of
the receipts were illegitimate. It is submitted that for Mr.
Sims to sort and re-sort receipts as being ‘‘legitimate,’’
‘‘illegitimate’’ or ‘‘borderline,’’ based merely on his feel-
ings that a receipt does or doesn’t look right is not com-
petent evidence. Most if not all of the receipts were con-
sistent with the running of the studio.

In Webb v Commonwealth, 204 Va. 24, 129 S.E. 2d 22, an
embezzlement case involving a bookkeeper, this Court
stated:

Where the Commonwealth, in a criminal case, under-
takes to prove the guilt of the accused by circumstantial
evidence ... not only must it prove the circumstances,
but it must overcome the presumption of innocence and
establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. All nec-
essary circumstances proved must be consistent with
guilt and inconsistent with innocence. It is not sufficient
that the evidence create a suspicion of guilt, however
strong, or even a probability of guilt, but must exclude
every reasonable hypothesis save that of guilt... at
p. 29. (emphasis added).

The Commonwealth never did exclude every reasonable
hypothesis of innocence. The grocery, liquor, hardware and
supplies purchases could have been legitimate receipts. The
few clothing and jewelry items purchased could have been
another’s, particularly Mrs. Sims; some could have been
items for the studio, such as costumes or door prizes. Others
were being compensated for running studio errands; why

27

couldn’t petitioner have arranged for compensation for
gasoline.”

The Commonwealth attempted to show irregularities in
the check ledger (Tr. 325-330), apparently to show Mrs.
Coleman’s intent to cover up her alleged embezzlement. But
such irregularities ** were few and far between, in view of
the numerous check entries that were written correctly. (Tr.
364). Such discrepencies had little or nothing to do with any
cover-up anyhow, since all petty cash checks and other
checks written by Mrs. Coleman were returned from the
bank and forwarded to Mr. Sims’ accountant. At any rate,
‘*the mere making of false entries in books of account is not
sufficient evidence of an act of conversion constituent to the
crime of embezzlement, regardless of the defendant’s fraud-
ulent intent at the time of making such a false entry. 26 Am.
Jur. 2d, Sec 56, at p. 609."*

Since the ‘‘mental element of the crime of embezzlement
is a fraudulent purpose to deprive the owner of his property
and to appropriate the same,’’” it is difficult to hold that
petitioner had the required intent to embezzle since there
was nothing covered up. The receipts were attached to their
checks for all the world to see. Some of the receipts even had
Barbara Coleman’s handwriting on them, identifying what
the purchases were. It is difficult to see how a receipt from
Posins Bakery with appellant’s handwriting describing the

17 A staff member was compensated for gasoline for a trip to
Allentown, Pennsylvania in connection with studio business. (Tr.
217).

18 Listing several checks in the ledger differently than the way
they were actually written.

1 See also State v. Heaton, 56 N.D. 357, 217 N.W. 531.

2° Bain v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. 89, 205 S.E. 2d 641 (1974).

28

receipt as ‘‘pigs in a blanket for festival party’’ could be
anything but that.”

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, a writ of certiorari should issue to
review the judgment of the Supreme Court of Virginia

Respectfully submitted,
Leo R. AnpreEws, Jr.
1400 N. Uhle St.
Arlington, Va.
Counsel for Petitioner

Davip Carey WoLL
815 15th St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Of Counsel

21 Mr. Sims dubbed that receipt ‘‘illegitimate.’’ (Tr. 300). Al-
though Mrs. Coleman used studio checks to pay for two personal
flower deliveries, Mr. Hawkes testified that he had billed several
flower purchases to the studio, and then subsequently reimbursed
the studio. (Tr. 368-377; 526). There was no evidence offered by
the Commonwealth that Mrs. Coleman did not do the same thing.

APPENDIX A
VIRGINIA:

In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme
Court Building in the City of Richmond on Monday the
23rd day of January, 1978.

The petition of Barbara Coleman for a writ of error to
judgments rendered by the Cireuit Court of Arlington
County on the 25th day of April, 1977, in prosecutions by
the Commonwealth against the said petitioner for felonies,
having been maturely considered and transcripts of the
records of the judgments aforesaid seen and inspected, the
court being of opinion that there is no reversible error in
the judgments complained of, doth reject said petition and
refuse said writ of error, the effect of which is to affirm
the judgments of the said court, which court shall allow
counsel the sum of $175 as compensation for services ren-
dered if appointed to represent the petitioner on this ap-
peal, and also his necessary direct out-of-pocket expenses.

And it is ordered that the Commonwealth recover of the
plaintiff in error the costs to be taxed by the clerk of
this court.

Record No. 771172
A Copy,

Teste:
ALLEN L. Luoy, Clerk

(s) By: Ricuarp R, Brinx
Deputy Clerk

30

Costs due the Commonwealth
by plaintiff in error in
Supreme Court of Virginia:

Attorney’s fee $175.00 plus his costs and expenses

Teste:
AuEN L. Lucy, Clerk

(s) By: Ricuarp R. Briyxk
Deputy Clerk

31

APPENDIX B
VIRGINIA:

In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme
Court Building in the City of Richmond on Friday the 3rd
day of March, 1978.

Record No. 771172
Barpara CoLEMAN, Appellant,

against
CoMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Appellee.

Upon a Petition for Rehearing

On mature consideration of the petition of the appellant
to set aside the judgment rendered herein on the 23rd day
of January, 1978, and grant a rehearing thereof, the prayer
of the said petition is denied.

A Copy,
Teste:
AuuEnN L. Lucy
Clerk

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385005_0665%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.