Dejonquavius Shine v. State, A21A1580

In May 2014 Yuri and Nataliya Rusev listed their 2006 Mercedes S500 for sale; a prospective buyer texted and arranged to see the car.
A man identified as Dejonquavius Shine (wearing a "New Orleans" hat) asked for a test drive, was given the keys by Nataliya, then drove off with the Mercedes without permission; she called 911.
A high‑speed pursuit ensued: Shine drove the Mercedes and a burgundy Dodge Charger (occupied by Shine’s accomplices) fled nearby; officers pursued on a busy state highway and I‑20; the Charger was PIT‑maneuvered and occupants apprehended.
The Charger was discovered to have been stolen in a Columbus carjacking days earlier; the Mercedes was later found abandoned at a Walmart and surveillance showed a man with a hat fleeing into woods.
Shine was identified by Nataliya in a photo lineup, was arrested after being located near the Walmart (K‑9 captured him), and cellphone evidence linked texts about the Mercedes to a prepaid phone in his possession; accomplices testified Shine organized and drove in the scheme; Shine testified he was not involved.
A jury convicted Shine of theft by taking, felony fleeing/attempting to elude, theft by receiving, and misdemeanor obstruction; the trial court denied a new‑trial motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed on sufficiency review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for theft by taking	State: testimony, photo lineup ID, flight from scene, and proximity to abandoned car identify Shine as thief	Shine: misidentification and alternative perpetrator (TQ/Roberson); he only drove to the area for a ride	Affirmed — evidence (ID, flight, arrest near car) was sufficient
Sufficiency for felony fleeing/attempting to elude	State: dashcam, officer testimony, lights used, high speeds through heavy traffic and driving into oncoming lanes show willful elusion creating public risk	Shine: challenges identification as driver and contends evidence insufficient	Affirmed — video and officer testimony supported felony fleeing conviction
Sufficiency for theft by receiving (Dodge Charger)	State: Shine drove Charger days after carjacking, possessed it in Douglasville, prior similar conviction, supporting inference he knew it was stolen	Shine: disputes knowing receipt or direct involvement in initial theft	Affirmed — circumstantial evidence (recent possession, conduct, prior act, and accomplice testimony) supported guilty knowledge

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (establishes standard for sufficiency review: whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
Miller v. State, 273 Ga. 831 (2001) (explains that some competent evidence, even if contradicted, sustains a jury verdict)
White v. State, 283 Ga. 566 (2008) (knowledge that goods are stolen is an essential element of receiving stolen property)
Lee v. State, 320 Ga. App. 573 (2013) (theft‑by‑receiving may be proven by circumstantial evidence including possession of recently stolen property)
Alexander v. State, 355 Ga. App. 234 (2020) (dashcam and officer testimony can support fleeing/attempting to elude convictions)
Pender v. State, 311 Ga. 98 (2021) (distinguishes principal theft from receiving and explains jury need not find defendant was principal thief to convict for receiving)
Dawson v. State, 271 Ga. App. 217 (2005) (possession days after theft plus flight supports inference of guilty knowledge for receiving)