Chasity Shirley v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 2020 CA 000373

On Oct. 5, 2018, Chasity Shirley used a Walmart self-checkout; loss-prevention observed her scan a toothbrush barcode while actually taking a rug and a couch slip cover, creating an $80.80 discrepancy.
Store personnel stopped Shirley, checked IDs, and asked questions; Shirley left after a brief confrontation (employees acknowledged no legal authority to detain her).
Shirley was indicted for unlawful access to a computer in the first degree (KRS 434.845) and a related assault charge (original robbery count amended); a jury convicted on the computer-access count and acquitted on the assault.
Shirley moved for directed verdicts pre- and post-trial, arguing Walmart had given "effective consent" to use the self-checkout and scanner, negating an element of the offense; the trial court denied the motions.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding Walmart’s consent to use the self-checkout remained effective because Shirley used the scanner exactly as intended (scanning and paying for an item), and the theft itself was independent of the computer access.
The majority also expressed concern that applying KRS 434.845 to routine shoplifting would produce an overbroad result and create felony exposure disproportionate to the value taken; a separate judge dissented, arguing consent is limited to lawful purpose and was forfeited by Shirley’s unlawful use.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Shirley had "effective consent" to access Walmart's self-checkout/computer, defeating the KRS 434.845 charge	Shirley: Walmart invited customers to use self-checkout; she scanned and paid for an item as intended, so consent was never revoked	Commonwealth: Consent was only for lawful transactions; using the scanner as part of a scheme to steal exceeded and revoked consent	Reversed: Court held Walmart’s consent covered use of the scanner as intended; scanning and paying for the toothbrush did not vitiate consent and the theft was independent of the computer access
Whether applying KRS 434.845 here is appropriate given statutory scope and proportionality concerns	Shirley: Statute is overbroad as applied and would transform many petty thefts into felonies; traditional theft statutes (misdemeanors for <$500) fit better	Commonwealth: The statute covers accessing a computer to obtain property by false means; it applies when a computer is used in furtherance of a scheme to defraud	Court criticized expansive application of KRS 434.845 to ordinary shoplifting, noted legislative thresholds for felonies elsewhere, and concluded narrowly that the facts did not satisfy the statute’s lack-of-consent element; suggested theft statutes were the proper fit

Commonwealth v. Benham, 816 S.W.2d 186 (Ky. 1991) (standard for directed verdict and appellate review of sufficiency)
Lackey v. Commonwealth, 468 S.W.3d 348 (Ky. 2015) (Commonwealth need only produce more than a scintilla to defeat directed verdict)
Commonwealth v. Montaque, 23 S.W.3d 629 (Ky. 2000) (statutory interpretation is a question of law for reviewing courts)
Floyd County Bd. of Educ. v. Ratliff, 955 S.W.2d 921 (Ky. 1997) (courts must interpret statutes according to plain meaning and legislative intent)
Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (recognition of rapid technological change relevant to statutory application)
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (discussing modern devices as technologically novel and the need for careful legal treatment)
Cantrell v. Kentucky Unemployment Ins. Comm’n, 450 S.W.2d 235 (Ky. 1970) (invocation of common-sense principles in legal interpretation)