The appellant was convicted by a jury for the offense of theft by taking. On appeal she contends that the evidence did not support the verdict and that her character was erroneously placed in issue. We affirm.
1. The evidence showed that the appellant lingered in a women's apparel department of Davison's Department Store for about one hour, refusing all offers of assistance from sales personnel. Security personnel were called, and one officer testified that she saw the appellant remove a collapsible flight bag from her purse, discreetly place several articles of clothing in the bag, leave the department with the bag, then abruptly return to the department, abandon the bag on a rack, and make a small purchase. Upon her departure she was apprehended with no stolen articles in her possession. Code 26-1802 provides that theft by taking occurs in such a mercantile establishment when an individual, "with the intent of appropriating merchandise to his own use or to deprive the owner of possession thereof or of the value thereof . . . (1) Removes any such merchandise from the immediate place of display; or (2) Conceals any such merchandise . . ." The evidence authorized the jury to conclude that the only reasonable hypothesis to explain the appellant's conduct was that, when concealing the merchandise or when removing it from the immediate place of display, she intended to appropriate it to her own use or to deprive Davison's of possession of it.