Thompson v. State
| Decision Date | 30 March 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. A14A2161.,A14A2161. |
| Citation | 332 Ga.App. 204,770 S.E.2d 364 |
| Parties | THOMPSON v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Long Dai Vo, Cara Clark, for Appellant.
Kay Baker, Asst. Dist. Atty., Herbert E. Franklin, Dist. Atty., for Appellee.
A jury convicted Harold Wesley Thompson of felony shoplifting, aggravated assault, and possession of methamphetamine. Based on the drug possession conviction and its determination that Thompson was a recidivist, the trial court sentenced Thompson to 30 years, with the first 10 years in confinement without the possibility of parole and the remainder on probation. Thompson filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court denied. On appeal, Thompson contends that the trial court erred in admitting a store shoplifting report under the business record exception to hearsay; that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of felony shoplifting and aggravated assault; that his sentence for possession of methamphetamine constituted cruel and unusual punishment; and that the trial court erred in sentencing him as a recidivist. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Following a criminal conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. Anthony v. State, 317 Ga.App. 807, 732 S.E.2d 845 (2012). So viewed, the evidence showed that on November 28, 2010, Thompson entered a Costco store in Catoosa County. The store's loss prevention officer, who was responsible for monitoring customers for suspicious activity, saw Thompson pick up a camera and a video game console and take them to a different area of the store. Thompson then pulled out a “razor blade or box cutter type knife,” used it to remove the camera from its packaging, and placed the camera in his pants pocket. Thompson also removed the game console from its box, hid the box in a suitcase on a shelf in the store, and shoved the game console down into the waistband of his pants. The officer notified the assistant manager and called the police about the suspected shoplifter.
The loss prevention officer followed Thompson to the exit of the store, where the assistant manager was waiting and observed the encounter. When Thompson approached the exit door, the officer confronted him and ordered him not to leave. Thompson pushed through the officer, who fell to the ground with Thompson on top of him; with both of them falling outside the store. Thompson then jumped up, took a few steps forward into the parking lot, and pulled a knife out of his pocket when he was “maybe 15 feet” from the officer. He waved the knife toward the officer “[i]n a threatening manner.” When the officer saw the knife, he stepped back, “put his hands back,” and stopped attempting to physically apprehend Thompson. Thompson then took off running across the parking lot.
Police who had responded to the 911 call saw Thompson running through the store parking lot. The loss prevention officer and the assistant manager stepped outside of the store, pointed at Thompson, who the police then ordered to the ground and apprehended. After speaking with the store employees, a police lieutenant searched Thompson and found the camera in his pants pocket and the game console in the waistband of his pants, as well as a “razor knife,” a glass pipe containing methamphetamine, a small digital scale, and a waterproof container with “plastic baggy squares” inside it. The police lieutenant later testified that, based on his training and experience, the type of container and “plastic baggy squares” he found on Thompson were commonly used for storing and transporting illegal drugs.
Thompson was indicted on one count of felony shoplifting, two counts of aggravated assault, and one count of possession of methamphetamine. The store's loss prevention officer did not testify at trial. Rather, the State called the store's assistant manager, who testified to what he had observed in the exit area of the store between Thompson and the loss prevention officer.1 Through the assistant manager, the State also introduced, over a defense hearsay objection, a report prepared by the loss prevention officer on the day of the shoplifting incident that, among other things, identified Thompson as the suspect, provided a physical description of him, and listed the stolen items and their prices. The trial court allowed the admission of the loss prevention report under the business records exception to hearsay. Additionally, the State called as witnesses the police lieutenant involved in Thompson's apprehension and a forensic chemist from the State crime lab who confirmed that the pipe found on Thompson contained methamphetamine. After the State rested, Thompson elected not to testify and did not call any defense witnesses.
The trial court directed a verdict on one of the two aggravated assault counts, and the jury convicted Thompson on the remaining counts. At the sentencing hearing, the State introduced certified copies of Thompson's prior convictions in aggravation of punishment. Because Thompson had a prior conviction for possession of a Schedule II narcotic, the sentencing range for his possession of methamphetamine conviction was imprisonment “for not less than five years nor more than 30 years” based on the sentencing statute in effect at the time of his offense. OCGA § 16–13–30(c) (2010). In light of its finding that Thompson was a recidivist under OCGA § 17–10–7(c), the trial court sentenced him to 30 years for possession of methamphetamine, with the first 10 years served in confinement without the possibility of parole and the remainder on probation.2 This appeal followed.
1. Thompson contends that the trial court committed reversible error in admitting the loss prevention report under the business records exception to hearsay, OCGA § 24–8–803(6).3 Because the jury trial in
this case was conducted in April 2013, Georgia's new Evidence Code applies. See Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 101. Under the new Evidence Code, business records are admissible as an exception to hearsay if certain criteria are satisfied:
Unless the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness and subject to the provisions of Chapter 7 of this title,[ 4 ] a memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses [is admissible], if (A) made at or near the time of the described acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses; (B) made by, or from information transmitted by, a person with personal knowledge and a business duty to report; (C) kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity; and (D) it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness or by certification that complies with paragraph (11) or (12) of Code Section 24–9–902 or by any other statute permitting certification....
OCGA § 24–8–803(6).
“This Court reviews a trial court's ruling on the admission of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Gant v. State, 313 Ga.App. 329, 335(2), 721 S.E.2d 913 (2011) ; see also Rock v. Huffco Gas & Oil Co., supra, 922 F.2d at 277(II) (A) (5th Cir. 1991). “A proper application of the abuse-of-discretion review recognizes ‘the range of possible conclusions the trial judge may reach,’ and that there will often be occasions in which we will affirm the evidentiary ruling of a trial court ‘even though we would have gone the other way had it been our call.’ ” (Citation, punctuation and footnote omitted.) Williams v. State, 328 Ga.App. 876, 880(1), 763 S.E.2d 261 (2014).
In the present case, the police lieutenant testified that after Thompson was apprehended, he returned the stolen camera and game console to the store's loss prevention officer so that he could complete his report and check the prices of the items. The loss prevention officer at that point prepared the loss prevention report in which he identified Thompson by his first and middle names as the shoplifter, provided a physical description of Thompson, listed the assistant manager as a witness, and identified the stolen items and their prices. Thompson argues that the loss prevention report did not qualify under the business records exception because it was prepared in anticipation of prosecution, and “did not have the degree of trustworthiness associated with business records.” We disagree.
It is true that a record prepared in anticipation of prosecution is not made in the regular course of business. Cf. Rackoff v. State, 281 Ga. 306, 309(2), 637 S.E.2d 706 (2006). But the type of report created by Costco cannot be used by Costco to anticipate prosecution, because the parties to the prosecution are the State and the shoplifting suspect. See, e.g., Brown v. State, 274 Ga. 31, 33–34(1), 549 S.E.2d 107 (2001) (). While Costco may have an interest in seeing that a shoplifting suspect is prosecuted and incarcerated and thus no longer able to shoplift from its store, it simply is not a party to any potential prosecution and cannot anticipate what action the State may take, as not all shoplifters are apprehended and not all apprehended shoplifters are prosecuted.
Even without considering Costco's non-party status, Costco did not make the report at the request of the State. See United States v. Blackburn, 992 F.2d 666, 670 (7th Cir.1993) (). Indeed, the officer on the scene testified that he was not sure that Costco was “familiar with what we needed for that criminal case.” Since Costco prepares a loss prevention report in every instance of shoplifting, concerns about reliability and trustworthiness are minimized.
Therefore, under the facts of this case, Costco's report was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Evans v. State
...... given his failure to identify any record evidence supporting these broad claims[.]). See also Thompson v. State , 332 Ga. App. 204, 208-210 (1), (770 S.E.2d 364) (2015) (holding that report prepared by non-party store was not made in anticipation of prosecution and was thus admissible u......
- Norwich v. Shrimp Factory, Inc.
-
Samuels v. State, A15A1804.
...business and are "classic exceptions" to the hearsay rule pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) ). Cf. Thompson v. State, 332 Ga.App. 204, 208–10(1), 770 S.E.2d 364 (2015) (holding that loss-prevention report prepared by store after shoplifting incident was nevertheless not made in an......
-
Salazar-Balderas v. State
...of the victim, and it is for the factfinder to determine whether the victim's apprehension was reasonable." Thompson v. State, 332 Ga.App. 204, 211–212 (2), 770 S.E.2d 364 (2015) (citation and punctuation omitted).Salazar-Balderas testified that when he returned to his vehicle to obtain his......
-
Torts
...at 361.102. See Griffeth et al., supra note 1, at 243-44.103. 268 Ga. 735, 493 S.E.2d 403 (1997).104. Norwich, 332 Ga. App. at 170, 770 S.E.2d at 364 (quoting Robinson, 268 Ga. at 748, 493 S.E.2d at 414).105. Id. at 165-66, 770 S.E.2d at 361.106. Id. at 168-69, 770 S.E.2d at 363.107. 297 Ga......
-
Evidence
...Ga. App. at 370, 771 S.E.2d at 73 (quoting Bray, 139 F.3d at 1109).68. Id. at 371, 372-73, 771 S.E.2d at 74, 75. 69. Thompson v. State, 332 Ga. App. 204, 208, 770 S.E.2d 369-70 (2015).70. 332 Ga. App. 204, 770 S.E.2d 364 (2015), cert. denied, 2015 Ga. LEXIS 562 (2015).71. Id. at 205-06, 770......