Lorie Bohannon v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A04-1609-CR-2152
| Ind. Ct. App. | Aug 10, 2017Background
- On Feb. 5, 2015, Lorie Bohannon placed a stack of steaks (value $140) so only the bottom steak was scanned at a self-checkout, then returned the steaks to her cart and moved toward the exit.
- Walmart employees observed and stopped her; police arrested Bohannon. She was charged with theft, elevated to a Level 6 felony based on a prior unrelated theft conviction.
- At a bench trial the State introduced ~90 minutes of store surveillance video (three angles); defense counsel voiced no objection to admission but asked that full footage be shown; the court allowed playback at 4x speed with no contemporaneous objection from Bohannon.
- Bohannon testified she was waiting for her brother to pay; her brother corroborated a text about the unpurchased meat.
- The trial court found Bohannon guilty, relying on the video showing passage past payment points, unscanned steaks, and her admission to her brother that she hadn’t paid.
- Bohannon appealed, raising multiple issues; the court limited review to (1) admission/handling of video evidence, (2) sufficiency of evidence as to intent, and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission/handling of surveillance video | State: video admissible and properly used at trial | Bohannon: court erred by not viewing complete footage and by playing video at accelerated speed | Not preserved for appeal—no objection at trial; issue waived |
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove intent to deprive | State: video + conduct support intent to deprive Walmart of value | Bohannon: lacked intent; testified she intended to pay when brother arrived | Affirmed—evidence viewed in favor of verdict supports reasonable inference of intent |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | State: counsel’s choices were reasonable and any omissions were not prejudicial | Bohannon: counsel failed to introduce evidence (shellfish allergy, proof of payments for other items) | Rejected—Bohannon failed to show deficient performance causing prejudice |
| Judicial/prosecutorial misconduct re: video playback | State: playback speed/use was proper and no objection made | Bohannon: misconduct in accelerated playback and viewing method | Not preserved and without cogent appellate argument; not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- McManus v. State, 814 N.E.2d 253 (Ind. 2004) (standard: abuse of discretion for evidentiary rulings)
- Lockhart v. State, 609 N.E.2d 1093 (Ind. 1993) (failure to object below preserves nothing for appeal)
- Leonard v. State, 73 N.E.3d 155 (Ind. 2017) (standard for sufficiency review—view evidence most favorable to verdict)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- McCary v. State, 761 N.E.2d 389 (Ind. 2002) (explaining Strickland application in Indiana)