State v. Hayward, 156 A.3d 734

On Aug. 22, 2014, Bethany Hayward used a Walmart self-checkout in Thomaston; store video and an asset-protection associate observed her repeatedly scan low‑priced white t‑shirts while placing higher‑priced shirts and other unscanned items in bags.
Surveillance video showed multiple misuses of self-checkout (under‑ringing, scanning one placemat while bagging three, failing to scan gel inserts, etc.).
A comparison of Hayward’s self‑checkout receipt and a post‑exit scan of her cart showed about $93.80 (receipt totals noted elsewhere as $111.96) of merchandise not properly scanned; Hayward gave varying explanations and claimed confusion.
Hayward was indicted on two Class C theft counts (unauthorized taking/transfer and theft by deception); she was convicted by a jury and sentenced to concurrent terms (3 years, all but 15 months suspended, plus probation).
Hayward appealed, challenging sufficiency of the evidence for both convictions and arguing the court violated double jeopardy by not consolidating the two theft counts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for theft by unauthorized taking/transfer	State: Video, witness testimony, and receipt discrepancy show Hayward left with unscanned merchandise with intent to deprive Walmart	Hayward: Evidence insufficient; her statements and claimed confusion negate intent	Conviction affirmed — jury could rationally find unauthorized control and intent beyond a reasonable doubt
Consolidation / double jeopardy from separate theft counts	State: Counts charge distinct acts (unscanned items vs. deceptive under‑ringing) and are not alternative theories of the same act	Hayward: Failure to consolidate led to multiple punishments for the same offense, violating double jeopardy	Held no error — counts arose from separate courses of conduct, so convictions and sentences on both do not violate double jeopardy

State v. Haag, 48 A.3d 207 (2012) (standard for viewing evidence in light most favorable to the State)
State v. Kittredge, 97 A.3d 106 (2014) (sufficiency review and inferences for jury verdicts)
State v. Drewry, 946 A.2d 981 (2008) (jury’s role in credibility and weight of evidence)
State v. Medeiros, 997 A.2d 95 (2010) (circumstantial evidence can sustain conviction)
State v. Flynn, 127 A.3d 1239 (2015) (elements of theft by unauthorized taking/transfer)
State v. Murphy, 124 A.3d 647 (2015) (when duplicative counts require consolidation to avoid multiple punishment)
Ayotte v. State, 129 A.3d 285 (2015) (double jeopardy principles under Maine and federal constitutions)
State v. Bouchard, 881 A.2d 1130 (2005) (no election required when theft may be proven in more than one manner)