Matthews v. State, A02A1451.
| Decision Date | 11 October 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. A02A1451.,A02A1451. |
| Citation | 572 S.E.2d 391,257 Ga. App. 886 |
| Parties | MATTHEWS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Ted B. Herbert, Marietta, for appellant.
Patrick H. Head, Dist. Atty., Bruce D. Hornbuckle, Dana J. Norman, Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee.
POPE, Senior Appellate Judge.
Michelle B. Matthews appeals following her conviction by a jury of six counts of felony theft by taking. We affirm.
1. Matthews first contends that the state failed to present sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. "On appeal the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to support the verdict, and appellant no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence; moreover, an appellate court determines evidence sufficiency and does not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility." (Citation omitted.) Williams v. State, 228 Ga.App. 698, 699(1), 492 S.E.2d 708 (1997).
Matthews was employed as a stylist at a salon in Kennesaw beginning in March 1997. By July 1998, she was training to become an assistant manager and had been assigned to be one of three "closers" at the salon. These employees were given the responsibility of counting the cash drawer at night, reconciling the cash and credit card receipts, and making the night deposit. The store policy and general practice were that the closer made the deposits the same night she closed, but if for some reason the deposit was not made the same night, it was placed in a lockbox. One closer was assigned to these tasks each night. The closers were given additional incentive pay to compensate them for these additional duties.
In October 1998, the salon's owner discovered inconsistencies between Matthews's closing paperwork and bank records for the salon's account. Six of the deposits prepared by Matthews between August and October 1998 were never credited to the salon's account. These deposits included over $2,300 in cash as well as checks drawn in an amount in excess of $1,500. The salon owner determined from store records that these deposits had been prepared by Matthews and that she had applied for and received incentive pay for the evenings on which each of those deposits was prepared. Moreover, the records showed that no employee, other than Matthews, had worked all six nights.
The owner spoke with Matthews after the police had been notified about the missing deposits. The first thing Matthews asked was, " Do you think I did it?" When they discussed the dates of the deposits, Matthews told the owner that she had made all of the deposits, stating, "My face is going to be all over those cameras over there at the bank." She also said that she had never let the deposits out of her sight, except on one occasion when she took a walk with the store manager and her husband before making the deposit. Matthews also told the salon manager that she had made the six deposits and suggested that something must have happened to the deposits at the bank. In addition, Matthews told the Kennesaw police officer investigating the thefts that she had made the deposits.
Jane Brooks, a bank employee who was in charge of opening night deposits at the salon's bank, testified that the bank had procedures in place to ensure the safety of the deposits. Bank policy dictated that at least two employees be present when the night deposit box was opened. One person, a teller, had the key to the box, and the other person, either the bank manager or one of two client service representatives, had the combination to open it. The key to the night deposit box was kept in the main vault of the bank, so the box could not be opened until the vault was opened.
Matthews denied telling either the salon owner or the manager that she had made the deposits. She stated that on some nights other employees made the deposit for her, and on a number of occasions the deposits would be left overnight in an unlocked desk drawer.
In rebuttal, the state presented the testimony of the two other closers who worked during this period. They both testified that the night deposits were never left in an unlocked desk drawer, but rather were taken to the bank. Only a small amount of petty cash was left in the desk drawer. And only employees designated as closers were supposed to take deposits to the bank. They stated that they had never allowed any employee who was not a closer to make the deposit.
Matthews asserts that the state's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. State
...finding on whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient unless it is unsupportable as a matter of law. Matthews v. State, 257 Ga.App. 886, 887(1), 572 S.E.2d 391 (2002). (a) Guided by these principles, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to authorize a rational jury to find......
- LOGISTICS INTERN. v. RACO/MELAVER
-
Graham v. State
...for Graham's guilt was a question for the jury. Smith v. State, 255 Ga.App. 797, 798, 567 S.E.2d 322 (2002); Matthews v. State, 257 Ga.App. 886, 887(1), 572 S.E.2d 391 (2002). To convict Graham of theft by taking, the State had to prove he unlawfully took the property of the trucking compan......
-
Howard v. State
...323 S.E.2d 257 (1984). 4. Smith v. State, 253 Ga.App. 504, 505, 559 S.E.2d 537 (2002). 5. (Citation omitted.) Matthews v. State, 257 Ga. App. 886, 887(1), 572 S.E.2d 391 (2002). 6. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 7. Rogers v. State, 257 Ga. 590, 593(4), ......