A jury found Renna McCain guilty of theft by shoplifting. In her sole enumeration of error, she argues that the trial court should have granted a mistrial after evidence was introduced regarding an earlier shoplifting incident at a different store. For reasons that follow, we affirm.
McCain and Sabrina Dennis were charged with shoplifting various items from a Belk department store on December 2, 2006. Viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict,
1
the record reflects
that McCain and Dennis entered the store accompanied by
At trial, the State introduced McCain’s guilty plea to shoplifting from the same store in January 2004 as a similar transaction. During testimony about this similar transaction, the witness stated that McCain also had “merchandise concealed on her person that had come from another store.” Trial counsel objected to this testimony and moved for a mistrial, which the trial court denied. On appeal, McCain argues that the “introduction of evidence regarding merchandise from a store other than [Belk] is not properly within the scope of the similar transaction and amounted to inadmissible character evidence.”
The decision to deny a mistrial is within the trial court’s discretion, and we will not reverse it “unless the grant of a mistrial is necessary to preserve the right to a fair trial.” 2 Here, we find no need to reverse. Pretermitting whether the reference to McCain’s possession of items from another store was inadmissible character evidence, we conclude that any error in allowing this reference was harmless. 3 Harm as well as error must be shown when such evidence is improperly admitted. 4 As there was an eyewitness description of the shoplifting and another properly introduced similar transaction, it is unlikely that the brief reference to other merchandise contributed to the guilty verdict in this case. 5 Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion for mistrial. 6
Judgment affirmed.