Case Title: Jeter v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 183, 2007

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2007-10-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
YOLANDA JETER, 
 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§   No. 183, 2007 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§  
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§   Court Below—Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§   of the State of Delaware, 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§   in and for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§   Cr. A. No. 0609011592 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§  
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
   Submitted:  October 3, 2007 
 
 
 
 
      Decided:  October 29, 2007 
 
Before HOLLAND, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
This 29th day of October, 2007, it appears to the Court that: 
 
1) 
The defendant-appellant, Yolanda Jeter, was indicted on 
charges of Felony Shoplifting and Conspiracy in the Second Degree on 
October 16, 2006.  A Superior Court jury convicted her of both counts in the 
indictment.  Jeter was sentenced to fifty-five days at Level V for the Felony 
Shoplifting conviction.  Jeter was also sentenced to one year at Level V, 
suspended for one year at Level II, for the Conspiracy in the Second Degree 
conviction.  This is Jeter’s direct appeal.   
 
2) 
After the State presented its case-in-chief, Jeter moved for a 
judgment of acquittal which the Superior Court denied.  The sole issue 
raised by Jeter on appeal is whether testimony that the total value of 
 
2
merchandise shoplifted by her was more than $1,000 is sufficient to support 
a conviction for Felony Shoplifting.  In reviewing a challenge to the 
sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we review the evidence 
to determine “whether a rational trier of fact, considering the evidence in the 
light most favorable to the prosecution, could find the essential elements of 
the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.”1  In conducting our appellate 
review, we are required to recognize that “it is the sole province of the fact 
finder to determine witness credibility, resolve conflicts in testimony and 
draw any inferences from the proven facts.”2 
 
3) 
On September 17, 2006, Kenneth Crawley was employed as a 
security guard with the Wal-Mart store located at 1251 Centerville Road in 
Wilmington.  Jeter and Sylvette Wynn attracted Crawley’s attention because 
of the large amount of merchandise they had in their carts and the way they 
were acting as they walked through the store.  Following a standard store 
procedure to deter shoplifting, Crawley approached Jeter and Wynn to offer 
them some assistance.  Jeter denied the offer. 
 
4) 
According to Crawley, Jeter and Wynn “proceed[ed] to put 
more things in the cart.”  Crawley continued to observe Jeter and Wynn as 
the two women walked to the front of the store, passed the cash registers, 
                                          
 
1 Poon v. State, 880 A.2d 236, 238 (Del. 2005). 
2 Id. 
 
3
and walked out of the store with items in their carts.  Crawley did not see 
Jeter or Wynn pay for any of the items.  As Jeter and Wynn exited the store, 
the merchandise set off the Sensormatic alarm system.  Crawley approached 
the women and asked them to produce a receipt for the items in their carts.  
Neither Jeter nor Wynn could produce a receipt.   
 
5) 
Crawley then escorted Jeter and Wynn back into the store and 
lead them to the “apprehension room.”  Once the women were in custody, 
Crawley inventoried the items in their carts.  Crawley testified that he took 
the items “to a point of sale [i.e., a cash register] to be rung up on a training 
receipt.  That’s where we ring all that merchandise up in the cart and put it 
on the training receipt.”  Crawley gave the two training receipts to a police 
officer who responded to the report of shoplifting, Corporal Hahn.   
6) 
Corporal Hahn confirmed that Crawley provided him with two 
sheets of paper listing the descriptions and prices of the items found in 
Jeter’s and Wynn’s carts.  After he documented the total on the receipts in 
his police report, Corporal Hahn discarded the sheets as part of his personal 
standard operating procedure.  The respective values from the two sheets 
were reflected in Corporal Hahn’s report as $480.65 and $552.57.  Corporal 
Hahn testified that the total amount that Jeter and Wynn stole was $1,033.22.   
 
4
7) 
Shoplifting is a class G felony “when the goods, wares or 
merchandise shoplifted are of the value of $1,000 or more . . . .”3  Value is 
defined as the “market value of the property at the time and place of the 
crime. . . .”4  Jeter acknowledges that questions of value are matters of fact 
for the jury to determine.5 
8) 
On appeal, Jeter contends that there was insufficient evidence to 
support that the value of the merchandise totaled over $1000 as required for 
a Felony Shoplifting conviction.6  Jeter bases that contention on the fact that 
the two sheets Crawley provided to Corporal Hahn were not admitted into 
evidence because they were destroyed.  Jeter also contends that Crawley’s 
and Corporal Hahn’s testimony was insufficient to allow a rational jury to 
find beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the merchandise Jeter and 
Wynn shoplifted was more than $1,000 because the “items [she shoplifted] 
were never displayed to the jury, the value of the individual items was never 
displayed to the jury.”  As a result, Jeter claims that the value of the 
merchandise was not subject to challenge and that the jury had to accept the 
testimony of Crawley and Corporal Hahn as fact.   
                                          
 
3 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 840(d). 
4 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 224(1). 
5 See Carello v. State, 2004 Del. LEXIS 498, *8 (Del. Nov. 1, 2004) (citing cases); Davis 
v. State, 453 A.2d 802, 803 (Del. 1982) (“Evidentiary testimony from the owner is 
permitted as the value of the property, as the owner is presumed cognizant of the market 
value.”) (citations omitted). 
6 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 840(d) (2006).   
 
5
9) 
Jeter argues that the values listed on the sheets could have been 
disputed as incorrect if the two sheets had actually been admitted into 
evidence.   In support of her argument, Jeter submits that the receipts should 
have been produced because “[t]he question of whether an item was 
incorrectly scanned, double or triple scanned or incorrectly read by the 
computer are all logical arguments that could have been presented. . . .”  
Jeter argues that possible inaccuracies in the receipts used to compute the 
total amount Jeter and Wynn shoplifted undermined the value of Crawley’s 
and Hahn’s testimony.  
10) 
All of these arguments by Jeter, however, go to the weight of 
Crawley’s and Hahn’s testimony, not its admissibility.7  The jury, as the sole 
judge of the facts, was free to accept or reject Crawley’s and Corporal 
Hahn’s testimony about the value of the merchandise.8  On appeal, this 
Court will not disturb the credibility assessments that are inherent to a jury’s 
findings of fact.9   
11) 
There was sufficient evidence produced at trial to allow a 
rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the total value of 
                                          
 
7 See Davis v. State, 453 A.2d at 803 (“Defendant’s contention that Jones’ estimates 
[about the value of the stolen property] were inflated goes to the weight of her testimony, 
not whether the figures were properly admitted.”). 
8 Cf. Warren v. State, 774 A.2d 246, 258 (Del. 2001); Pryor v. State, 453 A.2d 98, 100 
(Del. 1982). 
9 See generally Poon v. State, 880 A.2d 236, 238 (Del. 2005) (footnote and citations 
omitted).   
 
6
merchandise Jeter shoplifted was more than $1,000.  There was eyewitness 
testimony about the nature and amount of merchandise that Jeter and her co-
conspirator shoplifted.  There was also testimony that after the merchandise 
was recovered, a security guard inventoried the items and that the total 
amount that Jeter shoplifted was $1,033.22.  When viewing the evidence 
presented in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of 
fact could find that the value of the goods in Jeter’s possession exceeded 
$1000.  Accordingly, Jeter’s conviction for Felony Shoplifting must be 
affirmed. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgments 
of the Superior Court are AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice