Criminal – Police officer convicted of stealing money from evidence room

Where video and circumstantial evidence supported a police officer’s convictions for stealing currency from an evidence room, the convictions were affirmed.

Background

This matter involves missing currency that had been stored in the South Boston Police Department’s evidence room. The trial court convicted Tiffaney N. Bratton, an officer at the police department, of embezzlement of public funds and misdemeanor embezzlement.

Sufficiency

Bratton argues that the trial court erred in finding the evidence sufficient to sustain her convictions. This court disagrees.

Only two individuals had the combination to unlock the safe: Sargent Chris Carswell and Bratton. And while Bratton is correct in noting that the safe was left unlocked on several occasions during July 2021, she ignores the fact that during the relevant time period, from July 2021 through August 2021, only three people had keys to the property and evidence room—Bratton, Carswell and Investigator Cameron Collie. Carswell and Collie denied taking any of the missing currency bags at trial.

Moreover, and highly probative in this case, the surveillance footage shows that on July 22, 2021, Bratton used her key to enter the evidence room, opened the safe and took a currency bag out of it. With her back turned to the camera, she stood up with the bag in her hands and then made gestures with her arms around her midsection. When Bratton turned and faced the camera, the bag was no longer in sight. Bratton made motions indicating that she was signing in and out on the logbook but did not actually sign in or out of the evidence room that day.

Bratton was also seen entering the evidence room and opening the safe without signing in or out on the logbook on three other instances in July 2021. On two of those occasions, she can be seen taking a bag out of the safe and then leaving the room with a large object covering her hand from view.

In addition, Bratton’s bank account had a negative balance on three separate dates in May and June of 2021, and she later made cash deposits into her bank account in July and August of 2021 in the amounts of $700, $1,800 and $1,000.

Juror misconduct

Bratton contends that the trial court should have granted her a new trial based on dishonesty of a juror (R.S.) during voir dire and his prior knowledge of an incident where Bratton used a taser during her police work, and because of the jury’s premature deliberations. This court concludes that Bratton failed to demonstrate that R.S. provided a dishonest answer to a material question during voir dire.

The trial court found that R.S. did not dishonestly answer the question of whether he knew Bratton because “his knowledge backed up that he really didn’t know her” and “[h]e did not know her because he did not have a relationship with her.” This finding is supported by the evidence. R.S. testified at the hearing that he only “knew of” Bratton prior to the trial but did not know her on “a personal level.” Bratton also failed to demonstrate that a correct response would have provided the trial court with a valid basis for a challenge for cause.

R.S. testified that his verdict was based on “[t]he camera footage,” not his prior knowledge of Bratton. And his testimony did not indicate any bias against Bratton due to his prior relationship with Bratton’s sister. Accordingly, Bratton has not established any implied bias against her based on R.S.’s response to questioning on voir dire.

R.S. testified that the taser incident left him with the impression that Bratton had made mistakes in her police work. But when asked specifically whether the tasing incident had “any influence on [his] verdict,” R.S. responded no because his verdict was based on “[t]he camera footage.” Based on these circumstances, this court concludes that Bratton failed to establish that R.S. harbored an actual bias against her.

Finally the trial court did not err in denying the motion to set aside the jury verdict based on the premature jury discussions because Bratton did not establish a probability of prejudice resulting from any juror misconduct.

Affirmed.

Bratton v. Commonwealth, Record No. 1796-24-2, April 28, 2026. CAV (unpublished opinion) (Malveaux). From the Circuit Court of Halifax County (Blessing). James E. Midkiff (James E. Midkiff, P.C., on brief), for appellant. Allison M. Mentch, Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. VLW 026-7-170. 12 pp.

Full-Text Opinion

VLW 026-7-170
Virginia Lawyers Weekly