COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Overton and Senior Judge Baker 

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia 

CAMERON E. MAGOUIRK 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 2768-97-1 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON 

 NOVEMBER 24, 1998 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY 

E. Everett Bagnell, Judge 

 Michael J. Lutke, Assistant Public Defender 

(Office of the Public Defender, on brief), 

for appellant. 

 Michael T. Judge, Assistant Attorney General 

(Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on brief), 

for appellee. 

 Cameron E. Magouirk (defendant) appeals his conviction of 

grand larceny/embezzlement, in violation of Code §§ 18.2-95 and 

18.2-111. On appeal, he contends the evidence was insufficient 

to support the conviction. Specifically, he argues the 

Commonwealth did not prove he intended to commit embezzlement. 

Because we hold that the evidence was sufficient, we affirm. 

 The parties are fully conversant with the record in this 

case and because this memorandum opinion carries no precedental 

value, no recitation of the facts is necessary. 

 "Where the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged after 

conviction, it is our duty to consider it in the light most 

favorable to the Commonwealth and give it all reasonable 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

inferences fairly deducible therefrom." Higginbotham v. 

Commonwealth, 216 Va. 349, 352, 218 S.E.2d 534, 537 (1975). We 

will reverse the conviction only if plainly wrong or without 

support in the evidence. See Martin v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 

438, 443, 358 S.E.2d 415, 418 (1987). 

 "To establish the statutory crime of embezzlement under Code 

§ 18.2-111, it is necessary to prove that the accused wrongfully 

appropriated to [his] use or benefit, with the intent to deprive 

the owner thereof, the property entrusted to [him] by virtue of 

[his] employment or office." Waymack v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 

547, 549, 358 S.E.2d 765, 766 (1987) (citing Lee v. Commonwealth, 

200 Va. 233, 235-36, 105 S.E.2d 152, 154 (1958)). "Intent is the 

purpose formed in a person's mind that may, and often must, be 

inferred from the facts and circumstances in a particular case." 

Jennings v. Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 9, 17, 454 S.E.2d 752, 756 

(1995) (citing Ridley v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 834, 836, 252 

S.E.2d 313, 314 (1979)). 

 The facts and circumstances of this case proved that 

defendant intended to embezzle Ashe's tree climbing equipment. 

Subsequent to his termination from Ashe's employ, defendant was 

asked to return the equipment on four separate occasions. When 

Ashe made repeated, reasonable attempts to collect the gear at 

defendant's home, the gear was locked away in various locations, 

all of them inaccessible to Ashe. When defendant finally talked 

to Ashe, defendant lied by telling Ashe the equipment was in 
- 3 - 

North Carolina when, in reality, defendant had taken the gear to 

his mother's house in Isle of Wight. Defendant also lied to Ashe 

about the length of time defendant was detained in jail. In all, 

defendant did not return Ashe's equipment for twelve days 

following defendant's termination and was persuaded to do so only 

after he was in police custody. The trier of fact was entitled 

to infer from these circumstances that defendant did not intend 

to return the equipment to his former employer. See Ketchum v. 

Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 258, 261, 403 S.E.2d 382, 383 (1991) 

(holding that failure to return a car five days past due proved 

intent). 

 We hold that the evidence was sufficient to support the 

conviction. Therefore, defendant's conviction is affirmed. 

 Affirmed.