|
Former magistrate guilty of embezzlement
BY MARGO OXENDINE • STAFF WRITER
WARM SPRINGS - Following a trial last Sept. 7, Judge Humes Franklin has found J. Cristina Stinespring, formerly of Bacova, guilty of four counts of embezzlement. Stinespring, who served as a magistrate, as well as Bath's Christmas Mother, will be sentenced April 18. She pleaded not guilty to the charges. When contacted by The Recorder this week, Stinespring, after consulting her attorney, declined to comment on the matter.
According to trial transcripts and other court documents, Stinespring, 56, now of Newport News, embezzled $2,640 from Bacova United over the course of four years. She served as treasurer of the non-stock, non-profit corporation.
Stinespring's attorney, Timothy Clancy of Hampton, made a motion to strike all evidence shortly after prosecutor Chris Singleton had rested the commonwealth's case that September day. Judge Franklin denied that motion, and took it under advisement, until he could hear the defendant's evidence.
After a brief recess, defense attorney Clancy advised the court that he was not presenting any evidence, and renewed his motion to strike the commonwealth's evidence.
The judge then took the matter under advisement, and directed Clancy to prepare a memorandum of law in support of his motion to strike. Singleton, Bath's Commonwealth's Attorney, also had the opportunity to file a memorandum in opposition to the defendant's motion to strike.
After those memoranda were submitted, the court reviewed them, and considered the case precedents cited. On Jan. 24, Judge Franklin issued a letter of opinion denying the motion to strike, and found Stinespring guilty of four felony counts of embezzlement. An order reflecting the court's opinion, prepared by Singleton, was formally entered March 4.
The state's evidence contended that, on May 24, 2000, Stinespring wrote a Bacova United check to "cash," for $1,920, and endorsed it herself. Stinespring wrote herself a check for $240 on Jan. 4, 2001; another for $240 on May 30, 2003; and yet another on Nov. 16, 2004.
The defense contended Stinespring was simply paying herself for services rendered to Bacova United, and reimbursing herself for expenses incurred during these duties.
The state countered that, because no corporate officer at Bacova United, including the treasurer, worked in a paid capacity, and because Stinespring told no other officer or member of Bacova United that she was taking the money, it was, in effect, stealing.
Clancy wrote, in his memo regarding the motion to strike, "There is no question that, as treasurer, she took the funds, appropriating them to her own use or benefit. It is our contention that the most material element is the lack of fraudulent intent It is absolutely to the contrary that she had fraudulent intent She made no effort to conceal these items."
Clancy's memo noted, "Absent proof that a defendant acted with fraudulent intent a conviction for embezzlement will not stand."
Singleton's brief noted that Black's Law Dictionary defines fraud as "concealment of that which should have been disclosed." Singleton added, "The very fact that she did not discuss her self-ordained compensation indicates her intent to keep that compensation secret."
On the "memo" line at the bottom of each check she wrote to herself or to cash, Stinespring had made notations such as "reimbursement for expenses," "administrative services," or "administrative expenses." Stinespring, however, was the only person who ever used the checkbook, or saw the cancelled checks.
Virginia State Police investigator Allen Brown testified for the prosecution. He interviewed Stinespring in Warm Springs on Dec. 21, 2006. Brown noted Stinespring "admitted she wrote the checks in order to recoup personal expenses that she had been paying out of pocket for several years."
When Brown inquired about receipts, there were none.
Regarding her administrative services, Stinespring told Brown she "assumed $20 a month would cover her expenses." And, while she had no authorization to pay herself anything, she told Brown "she didn't have anybody she could (ask) to get authorization."
The account irregularities were discovered when Stinespring, preparing to move out of town, turned over a box of corporation checkbooks to Bacova resident Letitia "Bebe" Haynes. Haynes testified for the prosecution at trial.
Bacova United was formed in 1972 as a non-stock, non-profit entity composed of Bacova landowners. It is basically a homeowners' association. In 1973, when the Lexington Presbytery decommissioned the little church in Bacova, that property was deeded to Bacova United. In 1983, Malcolm Hirsh, the man who once owned the entire village, deeded the common areas to Bacova United. Common areas include the post office, the playground, and the triangle at the southeast end of town.
When Bacova United sold the church - today, it is an art gallery - for $15,000, Stinespring told Brown, she figured "now that they had the money I will pay myself back for the expenses To me, $20 a month was nothing." She added, "I was the only one at Bacova (United) who took care of Bacova."
The first check, for $1,920, covered $20 per month ($240 per year) for a period of eight years, 1992 until 2000. The other three checks, each for $240, were what Stinespring considered her reimbursement for subsequent years.
Singleton noted during trial, "It is obvious that this was a looselyrun corporation." He also emphasized Bacova is a small, close-knit neighborhood, and it "strains credibility" that Stinespring could not find anyone whom she could ask about compensation.
Clancy used the lax structure of Bacova United as the basis for his argument to strike the commonwealth's evidence.
"This was a corporation in name only," he said. "To suggest that (she failed) to seek corporate approval for what she did flies in the face of how that corporation acted."
Judge Franklin opined, "The Bacova United account was not a discretionary fund; it was the account of the corporation."
Sentencing is slated for Friday, April 18 at 9:30 a.m. in the Bath County Circuit Court.
In his letter of opinion, Judge Franklin wrote, "The court having heard the evidence presented by the Commonwealth and upon a Motion to Strike the evidence made by the accused does overrule the Defendant's motion to strike the evidence and finds the Defendant guilty on all four indictments of embezzling funds."
| 
