## Facts

- A J.C. Penney loss-prevention officer, Rebecca Shunk, observed Marquis Durrell Jennings select a suitcase and take it to the men’s Levi’s department.
- Shunk testified she saw Jennings place eight pairs of men’s Levi’s jeans into the suitcase, close it, and leave the store without paying.
- Shunk confronted Jennings outside, recovered the suitcase and jeans, and Jennings fled; he was later apprehended.
- The suitcase was on sale for $79.99.
- To prove the jeans’ value, the prosecution relied on Shunk’s testimony that she knew the jeans’ price because she read it from the jeans’ price tags during store audits.
- Defense counsel objected under the best evidence rule when the prosecutor asked for the jeans’ prices based on the price tags; the trial court overruled the objection.
- Shunk then testified the jeans were priced at $44 per pair; the trial court convicted Jennings in a bench trial of grand larceny and grand larceny with intent to sell.

## Issues

1. Whether the best evidence rule barred testimony giving the jeans’ specific price when the testimony was based on reading price tags that were not produced or otherwise accounted for.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Jennings stole eight pairs of jeans and that the stolen goods met the value threshold for grand larceny.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Virginia reversed the convictions and remanded.
- The trial court erred by admitting Shunk’s testimony to prove the specific amounts on the price tags without producing the tags or establishing an exception to the best evidence rule.
- The error was not harmless because the price-tag testimony was the only evidence establishing the jeans’ specific value needed to prove grand larceny.
- The court rejected the sufficiency challenge to the number of jeans and related value inferences, holding that Shunk’s testimony that Jennings took eight pairs presented a credibility question for the factfinder.

## Legal Principles

- When a party seeks to prove the contents of a writing, the original writing is generally required unless an exception applies; secondary evidence of the writing’s contents is inadmissible absent such an exception.
- A price tag is a “writing” for best-evidence purposes when the prosecution offers testimony repeating the tag’s stated price to establish retail value as an element of larceny.
- The best evidence rule is not avoided by characterizing price-tag content as “value” when the witness’s knowledge of the value is expressly derived from reading the tag.
- On appellate review of sufficiency, evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party at trial, and credibility determinations are left to the factfinder.

## Conclusion

Because the Commonwealth proved the jeans’ retail value through testimony repeating price-tag contents without producing the tags or showing an exception, the best-evidence error required reversal and remand, even though the evidence was otherwise sufficient to permit the factfinder to credit testimony that eight pairs of jeans were stolen.


Jennings v. Commonwealth, 779 S.E.2d 864 (Va. Ct. App. 2015)