A recent Court of Appeals decision provides a great illustration of how the Court addresses challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence in Criminal Cases.

When a criminal defendant appeals their conviction on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient, the Court of Appeals will “defer to the trial court’s factual findings unless they are ‘plainly wrong or without evidence to support [them],’” Pijor v. Commonwealth, 294 Va. 502, 512 (2017) (quoting Code § 8.01-680).  There was sufficient evidence if “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Dietz v. Commonwealth, 294 Va. 123, 132 (2017) (quoting Bowman v. Commonwealth, 290 Va. 492, 496-97 (2015)).  When the record contains any evidence in support of the findings made by that court, the Court of Appeals “may not retry the facts or substitute [its] view of the facts for those of the trial court.”  Ferguson v. Stafford Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 14 Va. App. 333, 336, 417 S.E.2d 1, 2 (1992)

Although it may not be immediately obvious, what this means in practice is that as long as there is ANY evidence to support a given factual finding, it will be upheld by the Court of Appeals.  Factfinding will only be overturned if there is NO evidence AT ALL, because questions of weight and credibility are left to the factfinder.  Nusbaum v. Berlin, 273 Va. 385, 408, 641 S.E.2d 494, 507 (2007).  This standard of review makes overturning a conviction based on insufficient evidence very difficult, but not impossible.

Tomlin v. Commonwealth, published March 15, 2022, illustrates this kind of review in action.  The Appellant, Ms. Tomlin, challenged her convictions for abusing or neglecting an incapacitated adult, and financially exploiting an incapacitated adult.  The evidence in the case was very disturbing.  Ms. Tomlin’s mother, (identified in the opinion as “B.T.” for the sake of privacy) in her eighties, was found by pest control providers in the apartment they shared, in desperate need of medical attention and basic hygiene care.

B.T. was transported to the hospital and found to not have any acute injuries, but she was admitted for treatment of numerous bed sores and ulcers.  Medical expert testimony from the emergency room was that B.T. was “confused,” generally aware of what was happening around her but not what day it was or who was President.  She was discharged to hospice care and died only a few months later.  Of note, there was no testimony before trial court regarding B.T.’s mental capacity from the time she was admitted to the hospital until the time of her death.  Shortly after her mother was admitted to the hospital, Ms. Tomlin was evicted from the apartment they shared.  She found a hotel to stay in, and used her mother’s social security money to pay for the hotel.

Ms. Tomlin was convicted of both abuse or neglect of an incapacitated adult, and financial exploitation of an incapacitated adult.  There was little question that there was evidence to convict Tomlin of failure to properly care for her mother, and that her neglect led to B.T.’s dangerous medical problems.  The neglect conviction was upheld with only a minor dispute.

But the Court of Appeals looked closely at the evidence and the trial court’s reasoning regarding the financial exploitation conviction.  The trial court reasoned on the record that if a person lacks the mental capacity to recognize that she is suffering from life-threatening bedsores and ulcers, she cannot have the mental capacity to consent to having her only income used for the benefit of another person.  On appeal, Tomlin argued that the evidence of B.T.’s mental incapacity about her healthcare decisions was not sufficient to allow the factfinder to conclude that she was also incapable of making financial decisions.  As a matter of law, she is right, and kudos to her public defender for noting this important point of law.

To secure a conviction, the Commonwealth must prove each element of any offense.  The statute in question in this case is Code § 18.2-178.1.  To convict Tomlin of financial exploitation the prosecutors had to prove that B.T. was incapable of making decisions about use of her money (her social security benefits) and that Tomlin knew of that incapacity and took advantage of it.  That mental incapacity must exist at the time of the offense, and must prevent the victim from understanding the nature or consequences of whatever is done with his/her money.  A final important concept is that when, as in this case, a statute requires proof of mental incapacity about a specific subject matter (i.e. financial transactions), proof of general mental incapacity cannot justify the trier of fact in concluding that the victim’s mental incapacity extends to the required subject matter. White v. Commonwealth, 23 Va. App. 593, 597 (1996).

Ms. Tomlin was accused of improperly using her mother’s social security benefits to pay for her apartment, while she was in the hospital and hospice care.  There was no testimony regarding B.T.’s mental state while in the hospital or in hospice, and no testimony about B.T.’s awareness of her own finances.  The Court of Appeals concluded that because proof of general mental incapacity is not sufficient, as a matter of law, to prove that incapacity extends to a particular subject matter, then proof of mental incapacity about one particular thing (one’s medical condition) is also insufficient to prove that incapacity extends to some other specific issue (like finances).  Because the statute at issue in this case specifically requires proof of incapacity regarding finances, the testimony about B.T.’s general “confusion” at the ER was not enough, and the trial court was wrong to extrapolate evidence of incapacity regarding medical problems and extend it to financial issues.

Although a factfinder is allowed to make “reasonable inferences” from proven facts in a case, an inference that short-circuits a statutory requirement is not reasonable and cannot survive on appeal. So Ms. Tomlin’s financial exploitation conviction was overturned.  A casual observer might find this conclusion counter-intuitive, but it all revolves around the statute and the requirement that the state prove each element of the offense in question.  This outcome reflects excellent work on the part of the defense attorney, identifying an error of law that formed a basis for a valid appeal.