COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Hale y and Senior J udge Annunziata Argued at Alexandria, Virginia

SELEMON S. TAKELE MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 1604-04-4 J UDGE JAMES W. BENTON, JR. MAY 24, 2005 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COUR T OF ARLINGTON COUNTY E. Preston Grissom, Judge Designate Robert W. Gookin for appellant. Susan L. Parrish, Assistant Attorney General (Judith Williams Jagdmann, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
The trial judge convicted Selemo n S. Takele of petit larceny of a library bo ok under Code § 18.2-96. Takele contends that, although he concealed the book under his clothing inside the library, the evidence was insufficient to prove eith er asportation of the book or his intent to deprive the library of possession of the book. We disagree and affi rm the conviction.
I. A grand jury indicted Selemon S. Takele for stealing “a book having a value less than two hundred dollars . . . belonging to Arlington Public Library” and for other offenses not at issue on this appeal. At trial, the evidence proved Ta kele committed a robbery and other offenses in a department store. After the robbery, he fled from the store and entere d a library, while being pursued. Two police officers found Takele in the childre n’s area of the library and detained him after a struggle. During a search incident to arrest for robbery, the officers found an Arlington

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.- 2 - County public library book under the waistband of Takele’s pants at the small of his back. The arresting officer testified that Ta kele’s shirt was draped over the book and the top of his pants and that the book was not vi sible before the offi cers began the search. Takele testified he intended to steal the clot hes from the department store and then ran into the library to hide from the people who were chasing him. Takele testified he was confused while he was in the library and took th e book to read while trying to hide. He admi tted the book was concealed under his clothing but sa id he was confused and was no t planning to steal the book. At the conclusion of the evidence, the tr ial judge convicted Takele of larceny of the library book and other offenses. Takele appeals the larceny conviction.
II. The crime of common law larceny is “defined . . . as ‘the wrongf ul or fraudule nt taking of personal goods of some intrinsic value, belongin g to another, without hi s assent, and with the intention to deprive the owner thereof permanently.’” Br yant v. Commonwealth , 248 Va. 179, 183, 445 S.E.2d 667, 670 (1994) (citatio n omitted). To sustai n a larceny conviction, the evidence must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the accused’s intent to steal and the asportation of the property. Id. Takele contends the evidence fa iled to prove both his intent to steal and an aspor tation of the book. The Commonwealth contends the circumstantial and direct evidence prove both elements beyond a reason able doubt. “Intent is the purpose formed in a person’s mind at the time an act is committed . . . and often must be inferred from the facts and circum stances of the case, in cluding the actions and statements of the accused. ” Commonwealth v. Taylor , 256 Va. 514, 519, 506 S.E.2d 312, 314 (1998). The evidence in this case proved Takele hid a library book under his clothing after committing a robbery in the department store. Takele testified that he tried to make himself appear- 3 - to be an ordinary user of the li brary “reading the book.” Although he describes hi s conduct as an effort to “to hide” from his purs uers, his explanation for concealing the book was, “I did not know what I was doing.” Clearly, his ac t of hiding a book under his clot hing could not ha ve conveyed to any reasonable person that Takele was reading the book or using it as an ordinary library patron would. From proof of Takele’s conduct and his te stimony, the trier of fa ct could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Takele concealed th e book with the intent to steal it. In Bryant , the accused was stopped before she left the store with merchandise she had not purchased. 248 Va. at 180-81, 44 5 S.E.2d at 668-69. Upholding the conviction, the Supreme Court reiterated the long standing principle that asportation need only be slight when a trespass against possession occurs. [The Court] . . . observed in Pritchard [v. Commonwealth , 225 Va. 559, 562, 303 S.E.2d 911, 913 (1983),] that the wrongful or fraudulent taking must be a trespass against the owner’s constructive possession. “[T]here can be no trespass against mere custody; trespass can only inva de possession and it can be perpetrated as easily by a custod ian as by anyone else.” Id. (quoting W. Clark & W. Marshall, Law of Crimes § 12.06, p. 849 (7th ed. 1967)). . . . Even though [the accused] initially may have had bare custody of the items she removed from [the store’s] shelves, she committed a trespass that invaded [the store’s] constructive possession by removing the items from their packaging and by removing the alarm sensors. Once [the accused] committed the trespass against [the store’s] constructive possession, any movement of the items, irrespecti ve of how slight, is sufficient evidence of asportation. Bryant , 248 Va. at 184, 445 S.E.2d at 670. Applying these principles to the facts of this case, the evidence proved Takele committed a trespass by secreting th e library book beneath his clothing. Th e library permits users to read its books and to borrow them. That permission does not extend to secreting books under the clothing of the user. “Where there is evidence that an individual has acted in a manner that is- 4 - inconsistent with that of a prospective [customer], and has exercised immediate dominion and control over the property, despite his continued presence with in the owner’s [premises], such conduct establishes sufficient [tresp assory] possession to satisfy the elements of larceny.” Welch v. Commonwealth , 15 Va. App. 518, 523-24, 425 S.E.2d 101, 104 (1992). Under the circumstances proved by the evidence, the trier of fact could find that Bryant committed a trespass against the library’s possession wh en he hid the book under his clothing. His movements with the hidden book, as he tried to avoid detection and to escape the grasp of the officers, “irrespective of how slight, is sufficient evidence of asportation.” Bryant , 248 Va. at 184, 445 S.E.2d at 670. For these reasons, we affirm the conviction. Affirmed.