Christina Merea Bailey v. Commonwealth of VA ( 2002 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Willis, Agee and Senior Judge Overton
Argued at Alexandria, Virginia
CHRISTINA MEREA BAILEY
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 0485-01-4 JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR.
MARCH 12, 2002
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY
Paul F. Sheridan, Judge
Edwin C. Brown, Jr. (Brown, Brown & Brown,
P.C., on brief), for appellant.
Virginia B. Theisen, Assistant Attorney
General (Randolph A. Beales, Attorney
General, on brief), for appellee.
Christina Bailey was convicted in a bench trial of grand
larceny, in violation of Code § 18.2-95. On appeal, she contends
that the trial court erred in finding the evidence was sufficient
to support her conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial
court.
I. BACKGROUND
On January 6, 2000, Martha Williams went to the Arlington
Hospital emergency room to have her right elbow examined. At
the time of her check-in, Ms. Williams wore on her right wrist a
$2,500 diamond and gold tennis bracelet. A plastic hospital
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
identification band was placed over the bracelet. Ms. Williams
was installed in an examination room that had only a curtain as
one of its walls.
Bailey, a phlebotomist, entered the examination room and
having assisted Ms. Williams into a hospital gown, began
preparing to take a blood sample. While she was making these
preparations, Dr. Steve Danaceau entered the examination room,
took Ms. Williams' pulse, and drew on her elbow with an ink pen.
He remained in the room, observing Bailey.
Bailey attempted to draw blood from Ms. Williams' left arm.
Encountering difficulty, she moved to the right arm. While her
blood was being drawn, Ms. Williams saw Bailey twirl the
bracelet around her wrist. Dr. Danaceau, however, recalled only
seeing Bailey twirl Ms. Williams' patient identification band.
Upon completing the blood extraction, Bailey left the
examination room. Dr. Danaceau then performed range of motion
tests and discussed with Ms. Williams the possibility of
surgery. He then left the room.
Approximately five minutes later, Ms. Williams realized her
bracelet was missing. She performed a cursory search of the
examining room. Not finding the bracelet, she left the
examination room, approached Dr. Danaceau, and informed him that
her bracelet was missing. Dr. Danaceau called security and
returned to the examining room to assist Ms. Williams in looking
- 2 -
for the bracelet. They were unsuccessful. The bracelet was
never recovered.
Bailey was convicted in a bench trial of grand larceny, in
violation of Code § 18.2-95. She was sentenced to serve three
years in prison, with two years and eight months suspended. A
condition of the suspension was $3,000 in restitution to Ms.
Williams.
II. ANALYSIS
On appeal, Bailey contends that the evidence was
insufficient to convict her of grand larceny. We disagree.
When the sufficiency of the evidence is
challenged on appeal, it is well established
that we must view the evidence in the light
most favorable to the Commonwealth, granting
to it all reasonable inferences fairly
deducible therefrom. The conviction will be
disturbed only if plainly wrong or without
evidence to support it.
Jones v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 566, 572, 414 S.E.2d 193, 196
(1992).
Bailey argues that the evidence against her is merely
circumstantial and fails to exclude a reasonable hypothesis of
her innocence; namely, that Dr. Danaceau may have stolen Ms.
Williams' bracelet. Whether this argument "is a 'reasonable
hypothesis of innocence' is a question of fact. '[W]hat
inferences are to be drawn from proved facts is within the
province of the [fact finder] . . . so long as the inferences
are reasonable and justified.' 'The weight which should be
- 3 -
given to evidence and whether the testimony of a witness is
credible are questions which the fact finder must decide.'"
Cantrell v. Commonwealth, 7 Va. App. 269, 290, 373 S.E.2d 328,
339 (1988) (citations omitted).
The evidence supports the trial court's finding that the
bracelet was taken. Only either of two persons could have taken
it, Bailey and Dr. Danaceau. However, Bailey was the only
person who showed an interest in it. Ms. Williams observed
Bailey twisting the bracelet while she was drawing blood. Ms.
Williams last saw the bracelet when Bailey was manipulating it.
Dr. Danaceau never touched the bracelet. He helped Ms. Williams
try to find it.
The hypothesis that Dr. Danaceau was the thief does not
follow from the evidence and, thus, is not reasonable. The
evidence supports the trial court's finding that the bracelet
was taken and that Bailey took it. The judgment of the trial
court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
- 4 -