State v. CareyState v. Carey
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Sol Gothard, James L. Cannella, Walter J. Rothschild
JAMES L. CANNELLA, Judge.
The Defendant, Lanaurd Carey, appeals from his conviction of theft of goods from Home Depot, valued between $100 and $500, in violation of
The Defendant was charged in a bill of information1 on July 15, 2003, pled not guilty and proceeded to trial on February 12, 2004. He was found guilty as charged by a six-person jury and was sentenced to one year imprisonment at hard labor.
The State filed a habitual offender bill of information charging the Defendant аs a second felony offender, based on a prior negligent homicide conviction. The Defendant initially denied the allegations contained in the habitual offender bill of information,
On June 28, 2003, Kristian Roane was working as a manager at the Home Depot on Citrus Boulevard in Harahan. Sometime between 4:20 p.m. and 4:30 p.m., he observed a man exit through the self-checkout register with a closed circuit television system. Roane approached the man and asked for his receipt. Roane explained that it was common practice for the store to vеrify the receipts of the self-checkout registers. The man produced a receipt and Roane initialed it. Roane then became suspicious after noticing that the time on the receipt was аpproximately five minutes earlier than the time the man was actually exiting the store.2
Based on his suspicions, Roane reviewed the security videotape and discovered that the receipt was for rеgister # 18 and not the self-checkout register. The videotape showed that the item was purchased at register # 18 by a female. A man later identified as the Defendant was standing and pacing next to her. He was not thе same person who showed Roane the receipt. The videotape showed the female handing the receipt to the Defendant. The Defendant did not exit the store, but went back into the merchandisе area. The Defendant was subsequently seen exiting the store. Thereafter, the man whose receipt Roane initially checked, exited the store through the self-checkout register with the receipt.3
After viewing the video tape, Roane contacted other Home Depot stores in the area to alert them of the suspected theft. He advised the other stores to look for a receipt with his initials because he suspected that the man would try to return the closed circuit television system to another store using the same receipt. Later that same day, a man did attempt to return the closed circuit tеlevision system to the Home Depot on Lapalco Boulevard in Marrero. Ireyonia Felix, a manager at the Marrero Home Depot, contacted Roane to apprise him of the situation. Roane described the two other individuals, the female and the Defendant, involved in the scheme. Felix was able to confirm their presence in the store. Specifically, the Defendant was at register # 12 purchasing an item at the same time that the other man tried to return the television system. The police were called and all three individuals were detained.
On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of theft and he asks for a patent error review.
The Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of the crime, because the State failed to prove that he had specific intent to commit the theft or that he was involved in the theft.4
The State responds that the evidence showed that the Defendant was involved in the scheme of the theft in that he passed the receipt to another individual who then used the receipt to pass through the self-checkout line.
The standard for appellate review of the sufficiency of evidence is “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential еlements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560, 573 (1979); State v. Bailey, 04-85, p. 4 (La.App. 5th Cir.5/26/04), 875 So.2d 949, 954-955, writ denied, 04-1605 (La.11/15/04), 887 So.2d 476. When the trier-of-fact is confronted by conflicting testimony, the determination of that fact rests solely with that judge or jury, who may accept or reject, in whole or in part, the testimony of any witness. Bailey, 04-85 at 4, 875 So.2d at 955. It is not the function of the appellate court to assess the credibility of witnesses or to re-weigh the evidence. State v. Marcantel, 00-1629, p. 9 (La.4/3/02), 815 So.2d 50, 56; Bailey, 04-85 at 5, 875 So.2d at 955.
In order to establish that the Defendant violated
Theft is a crime of specific intent. Id. Specific intent is “that state of mind which exists when the circumstances indicate that the offender actively desired the prescribed criminal consequences to follow his act or failure to act.”
A person who aids or abets in the commission of a crime is guilty as a principal even though he or she does not directly commit the act constituting the offense. Green, 02-883 at 5, 839 So.2d at 289. A principal is defined by
The evidence here shows more than the Defendant‘s mere presence at the store during the theft. The video surveillance clearly shows that the female purchased the television system and immediately handed the receipt to the Defendant. The Defendant then immediately re-entered the merchandise area of the store and in a short time exited the store. Thereafter, a
Based on these circumstances, we find that a reasonable juror could infer that the Defendant was involved in the theft scheme and that he gave the receipt to the man who passed through the self-checkout, to enable that man to exit thе store with the television system without paying for it, or to steal the television system. Therefore, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, the evidence is sufficient to support the Defendant‘s conviction as a principal to theft.
PATENT ERROR
The record was reviewed for patent errors in accordance with
The habitual offender bill of information contains clerical errors. Spеcifically, it twice improperly lists the date that the underlying conviction was obtained. It states that the Defendant was tried on February 20, 2004, when in fact he was tried on February 12, 2004. Additionally, it states that the Defendant was found guilty on Aрril 23, 1997, which was the date of his predicate conviction.
The purpose of a bill of information is to inform a defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation against him as required by the
In this case, there is no indication that the Defendant was prejudiced by the clericаl error. Clearly, the Defendant knew the underlying conviction upon which the habitual bill of information was based, since it contained the correct case number and section of court. Thus, we find that the clericаl error in the bill is harmless.
Accordingly, the Defendant‘s conviction and sentence are hereby affirmed.
AFFIRMED.