Cooper v. State

Evidence that the defendant was scheduled to begin serving a 90-day sentence on an unrelated charge was admissible to contradict his testimony that he expected to be steadily employed in the weeks following his arrest for shoplifting.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Following a jury trial, the Superior Court of DeKalb County convicted Rodney Cooper of felony theft by shoplifting, OCGA § 16-8-14 a. Cooper appeals from the denial of his motion for new trial, contending the trial court erred in admitting evidence that the offense occurred just one week before Cooper was scheduled to begin serving a sentence on another charge. Finding no error, we affirm. “Admission of evidence is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and the trial court’s evidentiary decisions will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.” Citation omitted. Carswell v. State , 263 Ga. App. 833, 834 2 589 SE2d 605 2003.

At trial in this case, the loss prevention officer of a discount store testified that on January 14, 2004, he observed Cooper take a digital video recorder “DVR” from a shelf in the electronics department, place it in a buggy, and wheel the buggy to the customer service desk at the front of the store. The loss prevention officer testified that Cooper attempted to receive a refund on the DVR, which retailed for $387. When the customer service manager refused to provide a refund, Cooper wheeled the buggy, still containing the DVR, out of the store. The loss prevention officer and another store employee stopped Cooper and demanded that Cooper return to the store. Back inside the store, the loss prevention officer asked Cooper why he took the DVR, and Cooper replied that he “needed the money; times are kind of hard.” The other store employee involved in stopping Cooper testified consistently with the first witness.

Cooper v. State

Evidence that the defendant was scheduled to begin serving a 90-day sentence on an unrelated charge was admissible to contradict his testimony that he expected to be steadily employed in the weeks following his arrest for shoplifting.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report