State v. Williams

• Decision Date: 15 January 1992
• Docket Number: No. 91-KA-346,91-KA-346
• Citation: State v. Williams, 593 So.2d 753 (La. App. 1992)
• Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Lawrence WILLIAMS.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana

Page 753

593 So.2d 753

STATE of Louisiana v.Lawrence WILLIAMS.

No. 91-KA-346.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 15, 1992.

Ginger Berrigan, Jefferson Parish Indigent Defender Program, Gretna, for appellantLawrence Williams.

Louise Korns, of counsel; Office of the Dist. Atty., Gretna, for the State.

Before GAUDIN and DUFRESNE, JJ., and FINK, J. Pro Tem.

ELORA C. FINK, Judge Pro Tem.

Lawrence Williams appeals his February 28, 1991 conviction of attempted illegal possession of stolen things valued at $99.00, a violation of LSA-R.S. 14:27 and 14:69.He was sentenced to serve three months in parish prison, with execution of the sentence suspended, and was placed on inactive probation for six months.In addition, he was ordered to pay court costs and a $100.00 fine.He filed a motion for appeal on March 1, 1991.¹

We affirm the conviction, for the reasons that follow.

FACTS

Dan Salzer, general manager of Gallo Wine Company of Louisiana, Inc., testified Lawrence Williams had been employed by his company for 19 years as a day warehouseman.On June 13, 1990the defendant had been working for about a week as temporary night supervisor because the permanent supervisor had been injured.As supervisor Williams was in charge of loading trucks, a job which involves security and accuracy, and was entrusted with the keys to the warehouse.Those included a shunt key that operates a switch to disengage the alarm system.The supervisor is responsible for leaving the shunt switch in an open position so that he will be notified by the ringing of a loud bell if anyone attempts to leave the building.

Salzer testified further that he and Jimmy Band, the warehouse manager, set up a surveillance in the office building across from the warehouse at about 12:15 on the morning of June 13th.They had been notified that morning by the cleaning crew that people were taking wine out of the warehouse and transporting it out by automobile.

At approximately ten minutes to 1:00, they heard the alarm system go off, indicating somebody was operating the outer door.They observed Derrick Sterling, a temporary employee, exit the warehouse holding a four-pack of wine coolers.Sterling reentered the building and exited again carrying two rolls of toilet paper.The alarm sounded again, but there was no sign of Lawrence Williams coming out to check on why the alarm was going off.Sterling then left the premises.

At about 1:10 a.m., employee Erskine Moore came out through the same door carrying two cases of wine from the Gallo inventory, but the alarm did not sound.Moore put the wine in the trunk of a car belonging to Ronnie Jones, another employee.This was the only car left on the premises.When Moore opened the trunk, Salzer saw four more cases of wine already in there.Moore then reentered the warehouse and came out again carrying another case of wine, which he put in the back seat of the car directly behind the driver's seat.Moore then return to the warehouse.Through all of Moore's exits and re-entrances, there was no sound from the alarm bell.

Then Moore and Jones exited while Williams set the night alarm.Williams then proceeded out to join the others in Jones' car.Jones sat in the driver's seat, the defendant sat in the front passenger seat, and Moore sat in the back behind the defendant.Salzer stated there was a case of alcohol in the back seat, next to Moore and directly behind the driver.He stated the men waited in the car a couple of minutes, which he assumed was to hear the alarm sound to indicate the night security system had been turned on.

Salzer, who had already called the police, went out to the car to detain the suspects until the police arrived.Lawrence Williams got out of the car with his hand extended to shake Salzer's hand.As he stood up more than a dozen plastic wastebasket liners fell from his lap to the ground.Salzer informed him they were being detained for the police.He said none of the three offered any resistance.

When the police arrived they took custody of Moore and Jones.The defendant was arrested at a later date.The value of the wine was established through Gallo inventory lists, which showed the price of the wine was $20.40 per case.Photographs taken on the scene showed there were seven cases of wine and a bottle of pink champagne in the car.

On cross-examination, Salzer testified he had made Williams temporary supervisor because he had considered him a trustworthy employee and he admitted Williams had no formal training in operating the different alarm systems, only on-the-job training.He said that Sterling, Moore, Jones and Williams were the only employees working that night and Williams was the only one with a key to the shunt switch.

Salzer testified further that the area where the trucks are loaded is noisy when the conveyor system is operating, but pointed out that the truck-loading had been finished before the incident he and Band observed.Salzer admitted he never saw the defendant himself carry out any wine or physically assist anyone to carry out wine and that Williams did not look in the trunk or in the back seat when he got into the car.

The testimony of James Band, the warehouse and delivery manager for Gallo, was the same as Salzer's.In addition, Band noted that the alarms are supposed to remain activated on both doors leading out of the warehouse until time for the night shift to leave.He admitted that he could not see the loading area from the surveillance position and that he did not know where the defendant was during the transfer of the wine from the warehouse to the car.He also admitted, that he never saw the defendant carry out any wine, either by himself or by helping others.

Testifying in his own defense, Williams stated he had been with the company for 19 years and had never had problems with the law nor been convicted of any crimes.He testified he had been provided with no training for the supervisor's position, but had learned the job by watching the previous supervisor.He said he had not really wanted the position, but had to fill in until they could get someone.

The defendant testified he got into Jones' car because Jones had been giving him a ride to the bus stop during the week he worked as night supervisor.He denied stealing any wine and he denied he knew anyone was stealing wine.

On cross-examination, Williams stated this was the first time in his employment history that he had access to a shunt switch key.According to him when they were getting ready to close up at about 1:45 a.m. he had to turn off the shunt switch to make sure the building was locked, as well as go into the truck yard to check the trucks to make sure they were also locked.He testified further that he took the garbage can liners because they were old, wrinkled and dirty; he said he had permission from another employee who was there earlier.

Williams denied seeing the case of wine in the back seat of the car.He testified the interior light in Jones' car did not work and that he had only just sat down in the car when Salzer confronted the passengers and had not looked in the back seat.He also asserted that Jones told the police that Williams was not "with" them.

On rebuttal, the prosecution recalled Salzer to the stand.Salzer stated that the garbage bags that fell out of the defendant's lap were new and there were about a dozen and a half.After this testimony, the prosecution and the defense stipulated that the trash bags were not mentioned in the police report or in any of the statements taken by the police.

In rendering his verdict at the conclusion of trial, the judge made the following statement:

The Court finds the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant participated in this crime.Particularly, the fact that there was only one key available to shunt out the alarm system.And the alarm system was conveniently off at the time the wine is removed from the building.So, the Court finds that the State has borne its burden of proof, and finds the defendant guilty.

LAW

The sole issue on appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.The defendant argues the State failed to establish that he"attempted to possess, procure, receive or conceal that wine, much less that he did so knowing or having good reason to know it was stolen."

The standard for determining sufficiency of the evidence was discussed in State v. Burrow, 565 So.2d 972, 976(La.App. 5 Cir.1990), writ denied, 572 So.2d 60(La.1991):

The constitutional standard for testing the sufficiency of the evidence, enunciated in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560(1979), requires that a conviction be based on proof sufficient for any rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, to find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.State v. Rosiere, 488 So.2d 965(La.1986);State v. Davis, 540 So.2d 600( [La.App.]5th Cir.1989).When circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of the offense, LSA-R.S. 15:438 mandates that, "assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence."The requirement of LSA-R.S. 15:438 does not establish a standard separate from the Jackson standard, but rather provides a helpful methodology for determining the existence of reasonable doubt.State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676(La.1984);State v. DiLosa, 529 So.2d 14( [La.App.]5th Cir.1988), writ denied, 538 So.2d 1010(La.1989).Ultimately, all evidence, both direct and circumstantial, must be sufficient to support the conclusion that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.State v. Porretto, 468 So.2d 1142(La.1985), dissenting opinion, 475 So.2d 314(La.1985).[Emphasis added.]

Illegal possession of stolen things is defined in LSA-R.S. 14:69:

A.Illegal possession of...