## Facts

- Ralph Donald Davies used the fictitious identity “Brian Stark” to apply for store credit at two electronics retailers on August 21, 1990.
- At Circuit City, he submitted a credit application and identification in the assumed name, obtained approval, and purchased on credit a camcorder, tripod, and car stereo totaling $1,306.16.
- Davies signed a sales slip acknowledging receipt and removed the merchandise from Circuit City.
- At Luskins, he submitted a similar credit application, obtained approval, and purchased on credit a camcorder priced at $799.99, which he removed from the store.
- On both applications, Davies claimed “Brian Stark” was an attorney employed by a named law firm, though neither Stark nor Davies had been employed there.
- On September 5, 1990, Davies admitted “Brian Stark” was not his real name and that he had obtained identification in that name using items from a wallet he found; he located a matching name/address in a telephone directory to complete the applications.
- A jury convicted Davies of two counts of grand larceny by false pretenses.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury that larceny by false pretenses requires proof that the victim parted with both possession of and title to the property.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the stores intended to transfer, and did transfer, title (not merely possession) to Davies.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals held the trial court erred by omitting the “title” element from the jury instruction on larceny by false pretenses.
- The court held the instructional error was harmless because the evidence that title and possession passed was undisputed and the verdict would have been the same with a correct instruction.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient to prove title passed as part of completed credit sales.
- The convictions were affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- Larceny by false pretenses requires that the victim part with both possession of and title to the property; the offense’s gravamen is the obtainment of ownership, not mere custody.
- A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction stating the essential elements of the charged offense; omission of an essential element is instructional error.
- Instructional error may be harmless if the reviewing court can conclude, without displacing the jury’s fact-finding role, that the verdict would have been the same absent the error and substantial justice was achieved.
- Evidence of completed sales on approved credit, including execution of sales documents and removal of goods from the premises as purchases, supports a finding that the seller intended to transfer title even if the buyer obtained credit by fraud.

## Conclusion

The court recognized that “title” is an essential element of larceny by false pretenses and that the jury should have been instructed accordingly, but it affirmed because the undisputed evidence showed the retailers completed credit sales transferring both possession and ownership of the merchandise to Davies.


Davies v. Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 350, 423 S.E.2d 839 (Ct. App. 1992)