Opinion
68567.
DECIDED SEPTEMBER 25, 1984.
Motor vehicle theft. Baldwin Superior Court. Before Judge Prior.
Arthur L. Walker, for appellant.
Joseph H. Briley, District Attorney, Fredric D. Bright, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
The defendant appeals his conviction and sentence for the offense of theft by taking with reference to a motor vehicle removed from a used car lot "with the intention of depriving said owner of said property." Held:
The sole enumeration of error was that the evidence was insufficient to convict in that the totality of the evidence shows lack of intent to deprive or the intent to steal on the part of the defendant. The defendant admits he took the automobile, but contends he only "borrowed" the automobile for a short period of time and that he was under the impression that he had permission to do so. However, the testimony of the State controverts this issue as to the defendant having permission to take the automobile. The intent to withhold property of another even temporarily satisfies the mens rea requirement of the theft by taking statute. Thus it is irrelevant whether deprivation was permanent or temporary. See Martin v. State, 143 Ga. App. 875, 876 (1) ( 240 S.E.2d 231); Chandler v. State, 138 Ga. App. 128, 130 ( 225 S.E.2d 726). The evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact, the jury in the case sub judice, to reasonably have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of theft by taking. See Smith v. State, 251 Ga. 229, 231 (5) ( 304 S.E.2d 716); Ralston v. State, 251 Ga. 682, 683 (1) ( 309 S.E.2d 135).
Judgment affirmed. Deen, P. J., and Sognier, J., concur.