State v. Coleman
1991 La. App. LEXIS 3308, 590 So.2d 844, 1991 WL 259846 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Circumstantial evidence, including corroborating witness testimony, surveillance footage, and business financial records, can be legally sufficient to prove the value element of a theft charge beyond a reasonable doubt, even when the exact amount of money stolen cannot be precisely determined.
Facts:
- Ed Scanlon, the owner of a Chick-Fil-A, hired Nathan Coleman as a manager.
- In February 1990, Coleman began working the night shift and was responsible for closing the restaurant.
- Coleman instructed subordinate employees not to record cash sales on the register, but to open the cash drawer with a key.
- Employees followed these instructions, placing money from unrecorded sales into the register.
- At the end of each shift, the employees turned all the money over to Coleman, who was solely responsible for counting it and preparing it for bank deposit.
- Scanlon, suspecting theft, installed a camera and recorded sales activity on February 20, 1990, which showed numerous sales that did not appear on the register's records for that night.
- Scanlon's business records for February showed a 7% increase in food replacement costs relative to sales, amounting to a $2,700 discrepancy, which suggested significant unrecorded sales.
- When confronted by Scanlon, Coleman admitted to taking some money and offered to make restitution, but ultimately failed to do so.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Nathan Coleman by bill of information with theft of property valued at more than $500.00 in the trial court.
- Following a trial, a jury found Coleman guilty of the lesser included offense of theft of property valued at more than $100.00 but less than $500.00.
- The trial court sentenced Coleman to twenty-three months at hard labor and ordered him to pay court costs or serve additional jail time.
- Coleman (the appellant) appealed his conviction and sentence to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit (the intermediate appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does circumstantial evidence, including employee testimony about unrecorded sales, video surveillance showing unrecorded transactions, and business records indicating increased costs, constitute sufficient evidence for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the property stolen exceeded $100?
Opinions:
Majority - Armstrong, Judge
Yes. The circumstantial evidence presented by the State was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the amount stolen exceeded $100. In assessing the sufficiency of evidence, an appellate court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, under the standard set by Jackson v. Virginia. When a conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, that evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Here, the State presented multiple forms of evidence: testimony from an employee that she failed to record $500 to $600 in sales at the defendant's instruction; testimony from the owner that average nightly sales were between $150 and $200; videotape evidence of numerous unrecorded sales on a single night; and financial data showing a significant increase in food costs inconsistent with recorded sales. This combination of facts and circumstances provides a sufficient basis to support the jury's conclusion that the theft exceeded the $100 threshold.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the principle that a criminal conviction can be sustained entirely on circumstantial evidence. It provides a clear example of how prosecutors can establish the value element in a theft case without direct proof of the specific amount taken. By weaving together employee testimony, surveillance, and financial anomalies, the State created a compelling narrative of guilt that satisfied the high standard of 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt.' This decision affirms that appellate courts will defer to a jury's rational inferences drawn from a collection of indirect evidence, solidifying the application of the Jackson v. Virginia standard in such cases.
