☢ test - Í

704 (1983) (crime is completed when there is asportation, however slight, and although the goods are not removed from the land of the owner). The evidence that three youths were overheard in the car lot talking about stealing cars, and that they fled when they saw police, coupled with the circumstantial evidence that several vehicles were hot and parked in a different area than originally parked, was sufficient evidence to show the commission of the crime of theft by taking. See In re: E.G.W., 244 Ga.App. 119, 119-120, 534 S.E.2d 869 (2000).” Thomas v. State, 267 Ga.App. 192, 598 S.E.2d 913 (April 27, 2004). Charged with theft by taking of a motor vehicle, defendant “argues that the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury ‘that it must find Thomas’ intent to have existed at the time he acquired possession of the car.’ The record indicates that the trial court correctly charged the jury that ‘a person commits the offense of theft by taking when he unlawfully takes the property of another with the intention of depriving him of the property regardless of the manner in which the property is taken.’ [Cit.]” (Emphasis in original.) Held, this charge was sufficient. Smith v. State, 265 Ga.App. 57, 592 S.E.2d 871 (January 7, 2004). Under the theft by taking statute, OCGA § 16-8-2, “the phrase ‘regardless of the manner in which the property is taken or appropriated’ is a catch-all phrase rendering our theft by taking statute broad enough to encompass theft by conversion, theft by deception or any other of the myriad and even yet-to-be-concocted schemes for depriving people of their property,’” quoting Spray v. State , 223 Ga.App. 154, 155, 476 S.E.2d 878 (1996). “In a case such as this, when the alleged taking occurs when a defendant fails to perform under a contract with the victim, the ‘real issue’ is whether the defendant accepted or retained the victim’s money with no intention to satisfy his obligations under the contract. [Cit.] Here, Smith abandoned the project, promised to return the unearned portion of the down payment, then failed to do so. The jury was authorized to find Smith guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of theft by taking.” Accord, Patterson v. State , 289 Ga.App. 663, 658 S.E.2d 210 (February 20, 2008) ( also quoting Spray, above ). Howard v. State, 263 Ga.App. 593, 588 S.E.2d 793 (October 9, 2003). Without permission, defendant took victim’s truck loaded with tires, then returned the unloaded truck. Held, defendant could be convicted of theft of both the tires and the truck, even though the truck was returned. “Under OCGA § 16-8-2, theft by taking occurs when a person ‘unlawfully takes ... any property of another with the intention of depriving him of the property, regardless of the manner in which the property is taken....’ ‘Deprive’ means to withhold another’s property ‘permanently or temporarily.’ ‘Intent to use the property of another without the owner’s authorization evinces an intent to commit theft.’” Hammett v. State, 246 Ga.App. 287, 539 S.E.2d 193 (September 11, 2000). Theft by taking conviction affirmed; trial court properly charged jury “that the State must prove, ‘in addition to the theft by taking, that the property taken had a value of greater than five hundred dollars.’” Contrary to defendant’s argument, the allegation of value wasn’t mere surplusage. “‘No averment in an indictment can be rejected as surplusage which is descriptive either of the offense or of the manner in which it was committed. All such averments must be proved as laid, or the failure to prove the same as laid will amount to a variance. If evidence can be offered in support of the allegation, the allegation cannot be rejected as surplusage.’ (Punctuation omitted.) McBride v. State, 199 Ga.App. 527, 528–529(1), 405 S.E.2d 345 (1991), citing Henderson v. State, 113 Ga. 1148, 1149, 39 S.E. 446 (1901). Defendant is correct that ‘value’ as such is not an element of the Code section proscribing theft by taking. OCGA § 16–8–2; Bryan v. State, 148 Ga.App. 428, 429(2), 251 S.E.2d 338 (1978). Nevertheless, the evidence of theft must show the property taken had some value or a conviction cannot be sustained. Id. Generally, OCGA § 16–8–12 punishes all thefts as misdemeanors unless certain aggravating circumstances are shown. One such aggravating circumstance is that the stolen property ‘exceeded $500.00 in value.’ OCGA § 16–8– 12(a)(1). Consequently, the value of the property can be a relevant issue in any theft case in the same manner as a substantive element. Bryan v. State, supra, 148 Ga.App. at 429(2), 251 S.E.2d 338. The trial court did not err in charging the jury that, in order to convict, they must first find the value of the stolen lawnmower to exceed $500, as alleged in the indictment.” Fowler v. State, 245 Ga.App. 795, 538 S.E.2d 869 (September 6, 2000). Evidence supported defendant’s conviction for theft by taking. Defendant was staying with victim at victim’s residence when victim awoke one morning to find that both Fowler, and victim’s car, were gone. Car was in a locked garage, accessible only from inside the house. Victim reported the theft, and defendant and the car were found in a Texas motel four days later. Defendant was using a false name. Defendant had some of victim’s belongings in the motel room and refused to tell Texas officer where his friend who owned the car was. Belton v. State, 270 Ga. 671, 512 S.E.2d 614 (February 22, 1999). “Theft by receiving … is not an offense included in