Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

A.D. v. State

Court of Appeals of Arkansas, Division I

January 28, 2015

A.D., APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS, APPELLEE

APPEAL FROM THE BENTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT. NO. J-2013-624-D. HONORABLE THOMAS E. SMITH, JUDGE.

AFFIRMED.

Flinn Law Firm, P.A., by: Jennifer Williams Flinn, for appellant.

Dustin McDaniel, Att'y Gen., by: Brad Newman, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.

BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge. ABRAMSON and GLOVER, JJ., agree.

OPINION

Page 697

BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge.

Fifteen-year-old A.D. appeals the Benton County Circuit Court's order that found him guilty as an accomplice to theft of property and adjudicated him delinquent. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the court's ruling. We affirm.

In an amended delinquency petition filed 22 January 2014, A.D. was charged as an accomplice to theft of property, a Class A misdemeanor. The State alleged that A.D. aided two other juveniles in shoplifting from Gordman's. The court held a hearing in Feburary 2014, and Jill Timbes, a Gordman's employee, testified that she was in charge of " audit safety" and monitored security cameras, associates, and people entering the building. She explained that on September 7, 2013, she observed A.D. and another juvenile, C.B., enter the store, and that A.D. " looked up for a camera" when they entered the store. She agreed that it was protocol for her to observe anyone that either looked up at the cameras or proceeded to the fragrance and jewelry areas, which are the store's highest theft areas. She observed the two young men wander around the store and stated that A.D. seemed nervous, describing him as " rocking back and forth, kind of wringing his hands, and just looking down the aisles. He was looking out more than he was looking at merchandise." The two young men then met up with a female, A.M., who was carrying " a lot" of store merchandise and a large black purse. Around this time, Timbes was also notified that store employees had found several empty hangers in the shoe department.

Timbes observed the three juveniles walking through the store and eventually stopping in the shoe department, where C.B. and A.M. proceeded to squat down to the floor for several minutes with A.D. standing " right over them." Timbes described A.D. as looking " back and forth" and " nervous." The prosecutor then played a DVD of the store surveillance footage from that day, which was a stipulated exhibit. Timbes explained that she confronted A.M. and C.B. as they left the store and took them to her office, then went back to confront A.D., who was walking out of the store. Timbes found several items in A.M.'s purse, including a leather jacket, shirts, socks, and a speaker. C.B. also had a speaker down his pants. A.D. did not have any merchandise in his possession.

Officer Christopher Douglas with the Rogers Police Department testified that he responded to a shoplifting report on September 7 and that he observed the three juveniles in Timbes's office. Douglas stated that the juveniles were cooperative and that A.D. " admitted to shoplifting, as well as the others. I can't give you specifics of what it was. But it made me believe he was just as culpable as the other two that were there." He explained that the juveniles were arrested but released to their parents' custody.

At the close of the State's case, A.D. moved to dismiss,[1] arguing that he was

Page 698

" just there" and that " mere presence is not an accomplice to the theft." The court denied the motion and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.