COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Felton, Judge Elder and Senior Judge Willis 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

LATASHA ALON GARDNER, S/K/A 

 LATHASHA A. GARDNER 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 0789-07-2 JUDGE LARRY G. ELDER 

 JULY 1, 2008 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY 

William R. Shelton, Judge Designate 

 Lacey R. Parker, Assistant Public Defender (Office of the Public 

Defender, on brief), for appellant. 

 Joshua M. Didlake, Assistant Attorney General (Robert F. 

McDonnell, Attorney General; Office of the Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 Latasha Alon Gardner (appellant) appeals from her jury trial conviction for 

embezzlement in violation of Code § 18.2-111. On appeal, she contends the circumstantial 

evidence was insufficient to support her conviction because it failed to prove the money 

allegedly embezzled was actually received by the roofing company for which she was working 

as a temporary employee and failed to exclude the possibility that the money, if received, was 

not taken by someone else. We hold the evidence was sufficient to support her conviction, and 

we affirm. 

When considering the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal to support a criminal 

conviction, this Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth. 

Higginbotham v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 349, 352, 218 S.E.2d 534, 537 (1975). The fact 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

finder is not required to believe all aspects of a witness’s testimony; it may accept some parts as 

believable and reject other parts as implausible. Pugliese v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 82, 92, 

428 S.E.2d 16, 24 (1993). The jury’s verdict will not be set aside unless it appears that it is 

plainly wrong or without supporting evidence. Code § 8.01-680; Traverso v. Commonwealth, 6 

Va. App. 172, 176, 366 S.E.2d 719, 721 (1988). 

A conviction for embezzlement under Code § 18.2-111 may be sustained on proof that 

the accused “wrongfully and fraudulently use[d], dispose[d] of, conceal[ed] or embezzle[d] any 

money . . . [s]he shall have received . . . for [her] employer . . . or by virtue of [her] . . . 

employment.” Code § 18.2-111; see Waymack v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 547, 549, 358 

S.E.2d 765, 766 (1987). Proof of the “‘[u]nauthorized and wrongful exercise of dominion and 

control over another’s personal property, to the exclusion of or inconsistent with [the] rights of 

the owner,” is sufficient to prove embezzlement. Evans v. Commonwealth, 226 Va. 292, 297, 

308 S.E.2d 126, 129 (1983) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 300 (5th ed. 1979)). 

“Circumstantial evidence is as competent and is entitled to as much weight as direct evidence, 

provided it is sufficiently convincing to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of 

guilt.” Coleman v. Commonwealth, 226 Va. 31, 53, 307 S.E.2d 864, 876 (1983). Intent may, 

and usually must, be proved by circumstantial evidence, Servis v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 

507, 524, 371 S.E.2d 156, 165 (1988), such as a person’s conduct and statements, Long v. 

Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 194, 198, 379 S.E.2d 473, 476 (1989). Proof of deceitful conduct, 

for example, may establish the requisite fraudulent intent. See Smith v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 

646, 652, 283 S.E.2d 209, 212 (1981) (noting the defendant’s prior inconsistent statements about 

his contact with the missing property established his untruthfulness and provided evidence of the 

requisite criminal intent, which, in turn, was relevant to establish he was the criminal agent); 

Waymack v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 547, 550, 358 S.E.2d 765, 766 (1987) (in reversing the 
- 3 - 

defendant’s conviction, noting the absence of evidence that she attempted to conceal her 

allegedly criminal activity). 

 Here, the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, supported 

the jury’s finding that appellant “wrongfully and fraudulently use[d], dispose[d] of, conceal[ed] 

or embezzle[d] any money . . . [s]he shall have received . . . for [her] employer . . . or by virtue of 

[her] . . . employment.” Code § 18.2-111. Immediately before Paula Spradlin—the roofing 

company’s “meticulous” officer manager of more than thirty years—departed for her vacation 

and left appellant in charge of the company’s administrative office, Spradlin reconciled the cash 

and cash tickets in the company safe’s cash drawer and counted the money in the petty cash box, 

which was stored on a shelf in the safe. The safe was located in a fireproof “vault” room that 

was accessible only through the main administrative office Spradlin normally occupied and 

which appellant occupied in her absence. The building was designed such that customers 

entering the lobby to conduct business could see into the main administrative office, but the 

administrative office was separated from the lobby by a counter and window, and all transactions 

conducted with customers were “handled through” that window. The door to the vault room was 

kept unlocked during the day only after the person staffing the administrative office had arrived 

in the morning. 

 Before Spradlin departed for her vacation on August 12, 2005, she gave appellant five 

hours of training, in which she explained that tickets for cash sales made at the counter, along 

with the cash paid for those sales, were to be placed in the safe’s cash drawer. Spradlin also 

explained that tickets for charge customers were to be placed in the charge folder at Spradlin’s 

desk, which appellant believed Spradlin checked once a month. Upon Spradlin’s return, she 

found tickets for two of five cash sales that had occurred in her absence had been misfiled in the 
- 4 - 

 

charge ticket folder she kept at her desk. Upon further investigation, Spradlin determined the 

cash drawer was short $623.82 and the petty cash box was short $305.18. 

 Appellant claimed to have handled only two cash transactions, including one she 

completed with Company President Mark Bridenhagen’s assistance, and to have filled out the 

cash tickets for only those two cash transactions in Spradlin’s absence. Appellant said those two 

transactions were the ones for which Spradlin had found the tickets misfiled with the charge 

tickets in the folder at her desk. Appellant claimed she placed those two cash tickets in the 

folder because she did not know where else to put them and that she had put the cash received 

for those transactions in the cash drawer in the safe. When Spradlin said she and appellant 

should reunite the misfiled cash tickets with the money in the cash drawer,1

 appellant “just sat 

there” at her desk and made no move to accompany Spradlin to the safe. When Spradlin 

discovered the discrepancy in both the cash drawer and the petty cash box and was “frantically 

running around the office,” appellant said, “I did what I was told to do.” Appellant then just “sat 

there playing a game on her cell phone,” “never got up out of her seat,” and “never looked at 

[Spradlin].” Although appellant worked for the company for an additional three days after 

Spradlin discovered the money missing, appellant never asked Spradlin if “[she] [found] the 

money” or if “everything turn[ed] out all right.” 

Despite appellant’s claims that she completed tickets for only two cash transactions and 

put those two tickets in the charge folder because she did not know what else to do with them, 

both the two misfiled cash tickets, as well as three cash tickets properly placed in the safe’s cash 

drawer, bore the same initials, l.g., which were appellant’s initials. The evidence supported a 

finding that the handwritten product and pricing information on all five tickets, and the 

accompanying “l.g.” initials, were in appellant’s handwriting. Further, in contrast to appellant’s 

1

 This occurred before Spradlin had determined the drawer and cash box were “short.” 
- 5 - 

testimony that she put both of the cash tickets she admitted completing—including the one 

Bridenhagen assisted her with—in the charge folder because she did not know what to do with 

them, Bridenhagen testified that, as to the transaction in which he participated, he himself put 

both the ticket and the cash in the cash drawer. 

Finally, the Commonwealth offered testimony from Spradlin, Bridenhagen and the 

remaining employees who knew the combination to the safe or were routinely present in the 

company’s offices that no one other than appellant could have taken the money. The evidence 

established that the safe and vault were locked during non-business hours and that the safe was 

kept “closed” even during business hours so it would not be obvious to a casual observer that the 

safe could be accessed without the combination. Further, Spradlin, Bridenhagen and the 

remaining employees who knew the combination to the safe or were present in the company’s 

business offices during that period of time testified that they did not take the money missing 

from the safe. Those same employees testified that they saw no unauthorized people present in 

the building, no sign that anyone had broken into the vault or safe, and no sign that anything, 

other than the money later discovered missing, had been taken. Appellant, whose desk was 

closest to the safe and who completed the paperwork for all five cash transactions, told the 

detective who interviewed her following her arrest that other than the company’s office 

employees, no one was left alone in the company’s office while she was working there that week 

and that she was with all guests “the whole time.” The map of the offices introduced at trial 

showed that a customer transacting business at the sales window would have to pass through 

three doors, in addition to the door to the vault room, in order to gain access to the safe. 

The only reasonable hypothesis flowing from this testimony, viewed in the light most 

favorable to the Commonwealth, is that appellant removed from the cash drawer the ticket and 

$323.82 in cash Bridenhagen had deposited there; pocketed that money, along with an additional 
- 6 - 

$300 from the cash drawer; and placed that cash ticket and one other in the charge folder, which 

she believed Spradlin checked only once a month, in an effort to delay Spradlin’s discovering 

$623.82 was missing from the cash drawer. This same evidence, including the denial of all other 

employees with access to the safe that they had taken any of the money and appellant’s lack of 

concern for the fact that it was missing, supported the finding that appellant also took the 

$305.18 missing from the petty cash box, which was also stored in the safe. 

 The facts of this case are readily distinguishable from those in Simmons v. 

Commonwealth, 219 Va. 181, 247 S.E.2d 359 (1978), and Webb v. Commonwealth, 204 Va. 24, 

129 S.E.2d 22 (1963), relied upon by appellant. In Simmons, although the defendant’s 

unexplained absence from his job site after a theft there was suspicious, no evidence established 

whether the defendant ever appeared to work his shift as scheduled on the night in question, and 

it was undisputed that the gas station had been robbed on 24 previous occasions and was left 

unlocked and unguarded overnight before the theft at issue was discovered. 219 Va. at 182-83, 

247 S.E.2d at 359-60. On those facts, the Court held “resolution of the critical issue of whether 

Simmons asported the missing items from the station depend[ed] upon conjecture and surmise 

rather than upon proven facts” and, thus, that reversal of his conviction was required. Id. at 183, 

247 S.E.2d at 360. In appellant’s case, in contrast to Simmons, the evidence supported a finding 

that appellant was the only person who could have taken the money. Coupled with appellant’s 

untruthful statements about the number of cash tickets she prepared in Spradlin’s absence and the 

indifferent attitude she displayed when Spradlin discovered the money was missing, this 

evidence was sufficient to prove appellant’s guilt. 

 In Webb, the Court held the evidence was insufficient to support the defendant’s 

conviction for embezzlement because “[a]ll of the employees of the office received payments on 

accounts, made change from the cash drawer, borrowed money from it, and cashed their own 
- 7 - 

checks and those of customers out of the cash drawer.” 204 Va. at 35, 129 S.E.2d at 30. In 

addition, the shortage claimed in that case involved several years’ worth of financial records, and 

the Court held a detailed accounting would be required before it could be determined whether the 

defendant was responsible for any shortfalls. Id. In appellant’s case, by contrast, the period of 

time involved was approximately ten days rather than several years; the evidence supported a 

finding that appellant handled the paperwork for all relevant cash transactions during that period 

of time; and the audit performed by Spradlin, known for her “meticulous[ness]” in performing 

her job, definitively established a shortfall of $929. Finally, as set out above, the evidence 

supported a finding that the only other people with access to the funds were other employees of 

the company who worked in the office, and those employees all testified and denied taking the 

money. Unlike in Webb, the evidence established appellant was the only person who could have 

converted the funds. 

The only reasonable hypothesis flowing from the evidence, viewed in the light most 

favorable to the Commonwealth, was that appellant embezzled from her employer United States 

currency having a value of more than $200, as charged in the indictment. Thus, we hold the 

evidence was sufficient to support appellant’s conviction for embezzlement, and we affirm. 

Affirmed.