## Facts

- Bernard Chesley Marsh stayed in Rhonda Gazda’s home and had access to her jewelry box.
- In October 2008, Marsh admitted to Gazda that he had taken some of her jewelry from the jewelry box and pawned it because he needed money.
- Marsh told Gazda he would retrieve the jewelry the next day after he was paid.
- Gazda reported the jewelry stolen to police.
- A police officer contacted Marsh to arrange the return of the property.
- Marsh returned some jewelry but told the officer he needed time to save money to redeem the remaining items from the pawn shop.
- The total amount required to redeem the remaining jewelry was $3,272.50.
- After about three weeks, Marsh still had not redeemed and returned the rest of the jewelry.
- Police then retrieved the remaining jewelry from the pawn shop and returned it to Gazda.
- The Commonwealth charged Marsh with grand larceny.
- At trial, Marsh testified he pawned the jewelry due to financial problems and claimed he intended to redeem it.
- Marsh stated he was working on a carpentry project from which he expected to be paid a total of $2,000 in installments, and that he was behind on bills.
- Marsh moved to strike the Commonwealth’s evidence, arguing it did not prove he intended to permanently deprive Gazda of the jewelry.
- The trial court denied the motion, and the jury convicted Marsh of grand larceny.
- Marsh appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence of intent.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Marsh intended to permanently deprive Gazda of her jewelry when he took and pawned it, as required for grand larceny.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the grand larceny conviction.
- The court held that a rational jury could find the required intent to permanently deprive based on Marsh’s unauthorized taking, pawning of the jewelry for cash, and failure to redeem it within a reasonable time despite his promises to do so.

## Legal Principles

- In Virginia, larceny is a common-law crime defined as the wrongful or fraudulent taking of another’s personal property, without the owner’s consent, and with intent to permanently deprive the owner of it.
- The intent to permanently deprive is a fact question that may be proven by circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the defendant’s conduct before, during, and after the taking.
- A factfinder may infer that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of voluntary acts.
- Pawning another person’s property without permission can support an inference of intent to permanently deprive because it places the property at risk of being lost to the owner if it is not redeemed.
- On appellate review of sufficiency, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, and the appellate court does not reweigh evidence or second-guess the jury’s credibility determinations.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed Marsh’s grand larceny conviction because the jury could reasonably infer that Marsh intended to permanently deprive Gazda of her jewelry when he secretly took it and pawned it for money, then failed to redeem and return the remaining items for weeks, requiring police to recover the property from the pawn shop.


Marsh v. Commonwealth, 57 Va. App. 645 (2011)