COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Willis and Bray 

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia 

GERALD FRANCIS ROWLAND 

v. Record No. 1658-94-1 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

 JUDGE RICHARD S. BRAY 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA OCTOBER 31, 1995 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH 

Frederick B. Lowe, Judge 

 Jean Veness (Office of the Public Defender, on 

brief), for appellant. 

 Thomas D. Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General 

(James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 Gerald Francis Rowland (defendant) was convicted in a bench 

trial for concealment of merchandise in violation of Code 

§ 18.2-103. On appeal, defendant challenges the sufficiency of 

the evidence to support the conviction. We affirm the decision 

of the trial court. 

 The parties are fully conversant with the record in this 

case, and we recite only those facts necessary for the 

disposition of this appeal. 

 In accordance with well established principles, we assess 

the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction 

upon a review of the record in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly 

deducible therefrom. Martin v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 438, 

443, 358 S.E.2d 415, 418 (1987). The judgment of a trial court, 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

sitting without a jury, is entitled to the same weight as a jury 

verdict and will be disturbed only if plainly wrong or without 

evidence to support it. Id. "The weight which should be given 

to evidence and whether the testimony of a witness is credible 

are questions which the fact finder must decide." Bridgeman v. 

Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 523, 528, 351 S.E.2d 598, 601 (1986). 

 To convict an accused for unlawful concealment in violation 

of Code § 18.2-103, "[t]he Commonwealth must prove (1) a willful 

concealment of merchandise, done (2) with the intent to convert 

the merchandise or to defraud the storekeeper." Snead v. 

Commonwealth, 11 Va. App. 643, 646, 400 S.E.2d 806, 807 (1991); 

see Code § 18.2-103. "The willful concealment of goods or 

merchandise of any store or other mercantile establishment, while 

still on the premises thereof, shall be prima facie evidence of 

an intent to convert and defraud the owner thereof out of the 

value of the goods or merchandise." Code § 18.2-103. 

 The evidence disclosed that defendant entered the Navy 

Exchange in the City of Virginia Beach carrying a "gym bag." He 

obtained a shopping cart and proceeded to the cigarette display 

area. A security officer employed by the Exchange, Dan Gaonach, 

noticed defendant, focused a surveillance camera on him, and 

observed defendant remove several cartons of cigarettes from the 

display, placing them inside the gym bag. Gaonach notified base 

police, approached defendant and watched as he placed additional 

cigarettes into the bag. When Gaonach confronted defendant, he 

recovered six cartons of cigarettes, valued at $84, from inside 
- 3 - 

the gym bag, and defendant remarked that he had "done something 

really stupid." 

 This evidence clearly provided ample support for the finding 

that defendant willfully concealed the cigarettes while still on 

the premises of the Exchange, thereby establishing prima facie

evidence of the requisite intent to convert and defraud. See

Code § 18.2-103. Nonetheless, defendant contends that it was 

insufficient to prove an intent to convert the merchandise or 

defraud the storekeeper beyond a reasonable doubt. 

 Defendant testified that he had placed the cigarettes into 

the gym bag because a physical disability prevented his use of 

shopping bags and "to see how many cartons would fit." The trial 

court, however, was entitled to disbelieve this testimony. 

Speight v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 83, 88, 354 S.E.2d 95, 98 

(1987) (en banc). "The mere possibility that the accused might 

have had another purpose than that found by the fact finder is 

insufficient to reverse the conviction." Bell v. Commonwealth, 

11 Va. App. 530, 534, 399 S.E.2d 450, 452-53 (1991). 

 "Intent is a state of mind which can be evidenced only by 

the words or conduct of the person who is claimed to have 

entertained it." Banovitch v. Commonwealth, 196 Va. 210, 216, 83 

S.E.2d 369, 373 (1954). We find that defendant's conduct, 

together with his statement and other circumstances established 

in the record, supplied sufficient evidence to prove the 

requisite criminal intent. 

 Accordingly, we affirm the conviction. 
- 4 - 

 Affirmed.