State v. Bean
2005 WL 676411, 899 So.2d 702 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The crime of theft is complete when an individual exercises wrongful dominion or unauthorized control over merchandise adverse to the owner's rights. This occurs when a person conceals goods and moves them past the point-of-sale and security systems within a store, even if the person does not physically remove the items from the premises.
Facts:
- On July 11, 2001, Joseph Bean and an unknown accomplice lingered in the electronics department of a Super K-Mart, repeatedly handling a Hewlett-Packard computer, placing it in and removing it from a shopping cart.
- An employee, Randall Harrison, interacted with Bean and his accomplice about the computer and at one point returned it to the display from their cart.
- After Harrison's shift ended, the accomplice pushed a shopping cart containing the computer out of the electronics department.
- Surveillance video later showed two individuals matching the description of Bean and his accomplice exiting the store through the south exit with the computer box without paying.
- The next morning, the store confirmed a computer valued at $799 was missing.
- On September 25, 2001, Bean returned to the same K-Mart and was observed on camera loading numerous DVDs and CDs, valued at $1,229.01, into a large container in his shopping cart.
- Bean placed a lid on the container, walked past the cash registers, and proceeded towards the store's grocery exit.
- Before leaving, Bean removed the container from his cart and placed it over a fence, beyond the store's electronic article surveillance (E-A-S) pedestals.
- Bean then exited the store without the container of merchandise and was immediately detained by sheriff's deputies.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Louisiana charged Joseph Bean by bill of information with three counts of theft of goods.
- Bean pleaded not guilty and opted for a bench trial instead of a jury trial in the Louisiana trial court.
- The trial court found Bean guilty as charged on counts one and two and not guilty on count three.
- The court adjudicated Bean a second felony offender and sentenced him to four years for count one and five years for count two, to be served concurrently.
- Bean's motions to reconsider his sentence were denied by the trial court.
- Bean, as defendant-appellant, appealed the convictions to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit, arguing the evidence was insufficient, with the State of Louisiana as appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the evidence sufficient to support a conviction for theft of goods where the defendant (1) acted as a principal with an accomplice who physically removed merchandise from a store, and (2) in a separate incident, concealed merchandise in a container and moved it past the store's security pedestals before exiting the store without the items?
Opinions:
Majority - Parro, J.
Yes, the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for theft of goods on both counts. With respect to the first incident (count two), Bean was a principal to the crime because he knowingly participated in its execution. The surveillance video and witness testimony showed him acting as a cohort with the accomplice, 'casing' the area, and jointly handling the computer that was ultimately stolen, proving he aided and abetted the theft. Regarding the second incident (count one), a 'taking' does not require that the goods be removed from the store. The crime is complete when the offender exerts control over the object that is adverse to the owner's dominion. By concealing the DVDs and CDs in a container and moving that container past the cash registers and security pedestals, Bean exercised 'wrongful dominion' and 'unauthorized control' over the merchandise. At that moment, the 'taking' was complete, and his intent to permanently deprive the merchant was reasonably inferred from his actions of concealment and bypassing security measures.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces and clarifies the 'taking' element of theft in Louisiana, confirming that the crime can be completed without asportation from the premises. The court's holding solidifies the legal principle that exercising 'wrongful dominion' by concealing and moving goods past points of sale or security systems is sufficient to constitute a taking. This precedent lowers the evidentiary burden for prosecutors, as they do not need to prove that a defendant physically exited a store with merchandise to secure a theft conviction. Consequently, it strengthens a merchant's ability to stop and detain suspected shoplifters once they have taken actions demonstrating clear intent to steal, even if still inside the store.
