State of Tennessee v. Errol Shields, M2016-01342-CCA-R3-CD

On Dec. 22, 2011, Errol Shields shopped at Sam’s Club (Franklin, TN); his membership card and receipt showed purchases including a comforter ($54.98) and a $99 mattress topper, but no television.
Loss-prevention reviewed store video after a 24-inch JVC television ($279) was discovered missing; video showed Shields pick up and place a TV in his cart, travel to the mattress/comforter area, manipulate boxes near mattress toppers, and later place a mattress-sized box and comforter in his cart.
Investigators found an empty TV box in the aisle and a mattress topper whose UPC tag was cut off near where Shields was seen; Shields later returned the comforter at an Alabama Sam’s Club on Dec. 30, 2011.
Cashier at the tobacco counter checked out Shields and testified the cart arrangement and his behavior were suspicious; Shields’ receipt reflected purchase of the $99 topper (not the $499 mattress) and the comforter was in a zipped bag large enough to conceal a TV.
A Williamson County jury convicted Shields of theft of property valued >$500 but < $1,000; the trial court sentenced him to two years, suspended to probation. Shields moved for acquittal/new trial arguing insufficient evidence and improper admission of the comforter-return evidence; the trial court denied relief and the conviction was affirmed on appeal.

Issue	State's Argument	Shields' Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence that Shields shoplifted the TV/mispriced mattress	Circumstantial evidence (video showing him pick up TV, manipulate mattress boxes, missing UPC, empty TV box, mismatching receipt) permits reasonable inference of concealment/price alteration and theft	No direct evidence he concealed the TV, moved UPC, or removed the TV from its box; gaps in video and absence of recovered property make evidence insufficient	Affirmed: viewing evidence in State's favor, a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence
Admissibility of evidence that Shields returned the purchased comforter in Alabama	Return of the comforter soon after incident is relevant to State’s theory that comforter was purchased to conceal the TV and later discarded/returned	Return was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial because the comforter was lawfully purchased and the return could mislead jurors	Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion — the evidence was relevant and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by prejudice

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Goodwin, 143 S.W.3d 771 (Tenn. 2004) (appellate review applies strongest legitimate view and reasonable inferences for the State)
Duchac v. State, 505 S.W.2d 237 (Tenn. 1973) (circumstantial evidence may alone support conviction)
State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. 2011) (same standard for circumstantial/direct evidence sufficiency)