With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". As such, the State presented sufficient evidence of each element of the charge of embezzlement to survive a motion to dismiss. Defendant further argues that the State failed to meet its burden of proving each element of embezzlement because some witness testimony was contradictory as to whether certain food items were served at school events, and because purchase and reimbursement forms do not constitute embezzlement simply because the authorizing signatures are not authentic. We find defendant’s argument to lack merit, as the State’s evidence - of atypical food and item purchases and numerous forged signatures - presents sufficient evidence by which a jury could infer defendant’s intent'to commit embezzlement. See State v. Sutton, 53 N.C. App. 281, 287, 280 S.E.2d 751, 755 (1981) (<HOLDING>); State v. Helsabeck, 258 N.C. 107, 128 S.E.2d

A: holding where the prosecution had to prove the defendant had the intent to gratify his sexual desires that the intent exception to rule 404b is dispositive
B: holding that evidence that the defendant exceeded his authority in issuing himself coupons permitted the inference that the defendant had the fraudulent intent necessary for embezzlement
C: holding that fraudulent intent as required in the charge of embezzlement can be inferred from the facts proven direct evidence of such intent is not necessary
D: holding that the trial court correctly instructed the jury that the defendant had to establish by evidence that outweighed the evidence against him that he lacked the capacity to form specific intent
B.