State v. McGregor, 051920 NCCA, COA19-1010

Docket Nº:COA19-1010
Opinion Judge:INMAN, JUDGE
Party Name:STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. PAMELA REGINA MCGREGOR, Defendant.
Attorney:Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Matthew Baptiste Holloway, for the State. Charlotte Gail Blake for the Defendant.
Judge Panel:Judges STROUD and COLLINS concur.
Case Date:May 19, 2020
Court:Court of Appeals of North Carolina
 
FREE EXCERPT

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v.

PAMELA REGINA MCGREGOR, Defendant.

No. COA19-1010

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

May 19, 2020

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Heard in the Court of Appeals 28 April 2020.

Appeal by Defendant from judgment entered 19 February 2019 by Judge Charles H. Henry in Onslow County Superior Court No. 16 CRS 57444

Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Matthew Baptiste Holloway, for the State.

Charlotte Gail Blake for the Defendant.

INMAN, JUDGE

Pamela Regina McGregor ("Defendant") appeals the trial court's judgment entering a jury verdict convicting her of larceny from a merchant by removing an anti-theft device. Defendant argues the trial court improperly admitted clothing into evidence amidst prejudicial concerns with their authentication. After careful review, we find no error.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

This case arises from Defendant's alleged theft of approximately $109.00 in clothing from a Cato clothing store in Jacksonville after removing an anti-theft device from one or more items of clothing. Evidence presented at trial tended to show the following:

On 23 November 2016, Defendant purchased several items from Cato totaling about $150.00. The clothing hangers and anti-theft devices were removed, and the purchased items were placed in a shopping bag. After paying for these items, Defendant told the store manager that she had not spent as much as she thought and wanted to do some additional shopping. Defendant then walked over to a clothing display near the front of the store and browsed for some time before leaving the store. The anti-theft alarm triggered as Defendant was leaving, and the store manager noticed hangers sticking out of Defendant's bag.

The store manager approached Defendant and grabbed the Cato shopping bag Defendant was carrying out of the store. After a brief struggle, Defendant let go of the bag. The store manager returned to the store and called the police. The store manager compared the items in Defendant's bag at that time to Defendant's purchase receipt and discovered five items that had not been purchased. Anti-theft devices had been removed from at...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP