Calvin Ross and co-defendant, Bobby Calvin Reeves, were convicted of theft by shoplifting, felony grade under OCGA § 16-8-14 b 2.1 Both were sentenced as recidivists to ten years to serve. Without challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, Ross appeals contending that the superior court erred in allowing the arresting officer to testify as to the “relevant” portions of the videotape made of the crime scene; erred in refusing to charge the jury that conviction required the finding that the value of the goods taken exceeded $300; erred in refusing to charge the jury as to misdemeanor shoplifting; and erred in admitting the crime scene videotape and the slow motion copy thereof for the State’s failure to lay a proper foundation. The foregoing claims of error as without merit, we affirm. The record shows that Ross and Reeves were arrested for felony shoplifting on December 26, 2000. Shortly before the arrests, Sharon Phillips, the store clerk then on duty at a Dawsonville pawnshop informed her boss, Roger Mincey, that two men, whom Ms. Phillips identified at the scene of the arrest as Ross and Reeves, had just taken two Geneve gold nugget watches from the store. Mr. Mincey gave initial pursuit in his vehicle, relinquishing the chase to a State trooper who issued a BOLO2 for the suspects based on the description of the car the suspects were driving given by Mr. Mincey. Thereafter, another trooper made a traffic stop and Ross and Reeves were held at the scene until Investigator Steve Hawk of the Dawson County Sheriff’s Department arrived with Ms. Phillips. Investigator Hawk arrested Ross and Reeves after Ms. Phillips identified Ross and Reeves as the perpetrators. However, Ms. Phillips indicated that the watches which Ross and Reeves were wearing at the time of their arrest had not been stolen, and no other watches were recovered by police. Held :
1. Over objection, grounded upon impermissible bolstering during the State’s case-in-chief, the superior court allowed the State’s attorney to replay its slow motion videotape3 of the crime scene in conjunction with the testimony of Investigator Hawk to permit him to testify as to portions thereof he deemed relevant to his decision to charge Ross and Reeves for theft by shoplifting. The state’s attorney argued that Investigator Hawk is an experienced officer. He was the one that made the arrest. I think that it is proper that he can point out to the jury what factors he used when he watched the video in determining that both men, not just Mr. Reeves, but both men should be charged with theft by shoplifting. In the testimony which followed, Investigator Hawk directed the jury’s attention to the videotape only insofar as it factually indicated that Ross and Reeves entered the pawnshop together; that they split up in the store; that Reeves reached deep into an open counter door; that Reeves rejoined Ross; that Ross, Reeves, and Ms. Phillips then moved to the TV section of the store; and that Ross and Reeves left the store together after talking with Ms. Phillips briefly.
