Evans v. Commonwealth
Virginia Supreme Court
308 S.E.2d 126 (1983)
- Written by Kelli Lanski, JD
Facts
Ernest Earl Evans (defendant) worked as a salesman at Central Fidelity Bank (Central Fidelity) along with James Elmer Smith, Jr. Central Fidelity maintained customer securities lists, reflecting customer names and the maturity dates and types of securities each customer maintained with the bank. The bank took care to maintain the secrecy and security of the lists. Typically, only two copies of the list would be printed and available in the bank, with one copy available for salespeople to view and the other kept at the investment clerk’s desk. One day, Smith requested extra copies of the securities list. He gave one copy to Evans, who took it home, and Smith later delivered the other copy to a competing bank. At the end of that month, Evans and Smith quit their jobs at Central Fidelity and began working at the competing bank. Both were indicted for petit larceny by embezzlement after Central Fidelity filed and won a civil suit pertaining to the stolen securities lists. At the criminal trial, Central Fidelity employees testified that the list was an invaluable sales tool and giving it to a competitor would give that competitor an edge. Evans and Smith were convicted and appealed, arguing that the Commonwealth of Virginia (commonwealth) had failed to prove that the list had value.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gordon, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
