Carter v. StateCarter v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Banke
Curtis Carter brings this appeal from his convictions of theft by shoplifting and obstruction of an officer.
According to the stipulated facts submitted in lieu of a trial transcript, a store employee observed the appellant and his brother place four cartons of cigarettes into their shopping cart and thereafter engage in an animated conversation, in which the appellant was heard to say to his brother, “Go.” At that point, the appellant left the store, and his brother concealed the cigarettes under his clothing. The appellant’s brother was immediately detained by the store manager, and during that confrontation, the appellant reentered the store several times and “looked around.” The appellant and his brother were both taken to the manager’s office, where the appellant denied knowing his brother. After being placed under arrest for shoplifting, the appellant gave the booking officer an incorrect birthdate and social security number. Held:
1. The appellant contends that there was no evidence of any intent on his part to participate in the theft. While mere presence at the scene of a crime affords no basis for a conviction, “ ‘presence, companionship, and conduct before and after the offense are circumstances from which one’s participation in the criminal intent may be inferred.’ [Cit.]”
Kimbro v. State,
152 Ga. App. 893, 894 (264 SE2$ 327) (1980). Criminal intent may be inferred by the trier of fact
*465
“upon consideration of the words, conduct, demeanor, motive, and all other circumstances connected with the act for which the accused is prosecuted.”
*465
2. The appellant contends that his failure to give accurate information to the booking officer did not constitute obstruction of an officer. See
In re G. M. M.,
179 Ga. App. 800 (1) (348 SE2d 126) (1986) . That offense is committed by “knowingly and willfully obstruct [ing] or hinder [ing] any law enforcement officer in the lawful discharge of his official duties. . . .”
3. The appellant maintains that the trial court erred in allowing the state to introduce into evidence, over his objection, several cigarette cartons found in his brother’s van at the time of their shoplifting arrests. “[E]vidence is relevant if it renders the desired inference more probable than it would be without the evidence.” Baker v. State, 246 Ga. 317, 319 (3) (271 SE2d 360) (1980). Under the wide latitude given the trial court in determining whether the probative value of evidence outweighs its potential for prejudice, the admission of this evidence was not error. See Alexander v. State, 239 Ga. 108 (1) (236 SE2d 83) (1977).
Judgment affirmed.
Birdsong, C. J., and Beasley, J., concur.