68 So. 3d 21
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Pettus was convicted of theft of goods valued over $300 but less than $500 under RS 14:67.10 in Jefferson Parish; sentence originally two years, later vacated for life due to habitual offender finding.
- On January 15, 2009, loss-prevention personnel observed Pettus concealing belts in his jacket at Dillard's in Lakeside Mall and fleeing the store.
- Deputy Gorman testified the belts were recovered later and valued at $307, with Barrios verifying prices; Belt prices were challenged on timing but corroborated.
- Pettus was chased through the mall, tasered after failing to stop, and the merchandise was partially recovered inside the store rather than carried to the exit.
- Barrios testified to belt prices inconsistently but the surveillance/photo evidence supported an aggregate value of $307; no price-tag tampering was proven.
- Prior to the January incident, Pettus was involved in a separate October 28, 2008 shoplifting incident at the same store/department with Vanessa Tabora, which the State used under Rule 404(B) to show intent/motive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for theft over $300 | Pettus concealed belts and intended to deprive Dillard's; entry into exit implied completion. | No exit with merchandise; only attempted theft; price-amount inconsistencies undermine value element. | Evidence supports theft; intent to permanently deprive inferred; completed theft element satisfied. |
| Admissibility of prior theft under 404(B) | Prior concealment of shirts shows Pettus's motive/intent for current offense. | Prior incident probative value outweighed by prejudice; insufficient proof of intent from prior act. | 404(B) evidence admissible; similarities render probative value substantial and not overly prejudicial. |
| Value issue—timing of price tags and total value | Total value of belts was at least $300 based on price tags; Belt totals supported by photo evidence. | Price-tag timing ambiguous; testimony varied; could undermine aggregate value. | Aggregate value proven to be $307; sufficient to meet the $300 threshold. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hearold, 603 So.2d 731 (La.1992) (sufficiency review framework (Jackson v. Virginia))
- State v. Arceneaux, 930 So.2d 44 (La.App.5 Cir. 2005) (circumstantial evidence methodology; reasonable doubt standard)
- State v. Davis, 637 So.2d 1012 (La.1994) (alternative hypotheses; appellate evaluation of circumstantial evidence)
- State v. Tran, 709 So.2d 311 (La.App.5 Cir. 1998) (intent and circumstantial evidence on appeal)
- State v. Guidroz, 721 So.2d 480 (La.App.5 Cir. 1998) (evidentiary burden for 404(B) showing of other crimes)
- State v. Code, 627 So.2d 1373 (La.1993) (modi operandi framework for 404(B))
- State v. Davenport, 2 So.3d 445 (La.App.5 Cir. 2008) (intent may be inferred from conduct; standard review)
- State v. Green, 839 So.2d 286 (La.App.5 Cir. 2003) (intent inference in theft cases)