Title: White v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
QUINTON WHITE, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 429, 2015 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below:  Superior Court  
§ 
of the State of Delaware 
v. 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 1407002011 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted:   April 20, 2016 
Decided:   April 25, 2016 
 
Before HOLLAND, VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
This 25th day of April, 2016, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
Quinton White and several accomplices, all overnight stockers at a 
Walmart store, plotted to steal televisions from the store.  They transferred 
televisions into large, empty boxes that had contained cheaper items.  They then 
paid for the boxes as if purchasing the cheaper items, and walked out of the store 
with the stolen televisions.  Although the shuffling of the contents of the boxes 
happened in one of the few places in the store not under twenty four hour video 
camera surveillance, security cameras filmed the conspirators moving televisions 
and large boxes into that area, emerging with the large boxes, and then buying the 
large boxes.  The State played footage of these activities for the jury, and various 
2 
 
witnesses testified to create a complete picture of the crime.  The jury convicted 
White of theft of property worth more than $1,500.  White has appealed his 
conviction, claiming the State offered insufficient evidence to convict him of the 
crime.  Because the evidence presented at trial was sufficient for a rational jury to 
have found each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, we affirm. 
(2) 
White and his accomplices were overnight stockers at the Centerville 
Road Walmart in Wilmington, Delaware.  They were responsible for moving 
newly arrived merchandise onto the sales floor and stocking the shelves.  At the 
relevant times, White was primarily responsible for stocking the grocery 
department.  Other than at Christmastime (when the store hired additional workers 
to meet the demand), no overnight stockers were supposed to stock the electronics 
department. 
(3) 
The store had 240 surveillance cameras that ran twenty four hours a 
day, covering most of the store.  Although no one actively monitored all of the 
cameras, the recordings were kept on a DVR where store personnel could examine 
them when necessary.  One section of the store, the “site-to-store” bins, was not 
covered by any cameras.  The “site-to-store” bins were where Walmart stored 
merchandise ordered on the internet for in-store pickup.  The “site-to-store” bins 
were near the claims area, where Walmart kept damaged or returned merchandise 
before being sent back to the factory. 
3 
 
(4) 
The criminal scheme took advantage of the gap in the store’s security 
created by the lack of video surveillance in the “site-to-store” bins.  The 
conspirators, in the middle of the night when there were few other employees 
around, moved boxed thirty two inch Vizio televisions and large but relatively 
cheaper boxed items (children’s sand tables and inexpensive table and chair sets) 
into the “site-to-store” bins.  To the casual observer, it looked as if stockers were 
just moving around merchandise.  But once out of the view of the cameras, they 
removed the contents of the large boxes and discarded them in the claims area.  
They then removed the televisions from their boxes, put them into the large boxes 
that had contained the cheaper items, and re-sealed the boxes.  They returned the 
large boxes to the sales floor, where they sat for an hour or so.  A co-conspirator 
then purchased the boxes that appeared to contain cheaper items, but in fact 
contained the televisions.  The conspirators managed to steal eight televisions 
valued at $228 per television. 
(5) 
The first cracks in the scheme began to appear when a manager 
discovered two empty television boxes in the “site-to-store” bins on May 15, 2014.  
The empty boxes prompted an investigation, and when no one could explain the 
empty boxes, a store investigator examined the surveillance footage.  The video 
footage revealed that White and several others had moved televisions and cheaper 
merchandise in and out of the “site-to-store” bins, and then supposedly purchased 
4 
 
the cheaper merchandise.  When the store took inventory, it discovered that eight 
thirty two inch Vizio televisions had disappeared. 
(6) 
White was fired, and the police notified about the theft.  The State 
indicted White for violation of 11 Del. C. § 841B, theft: organized crime retail.  
After a two-day trial during which the State played the surveillance footage, the 
jury returned a guilty verdict on the lesser included offense of theft of property 
worth more than $1,500.1  The Superior Court sentenced White to two years at 
Level 5 suspended for eighteen months at Level 3.  This appeal followed. 
(7) 
White argues that there was insufficient evidence for a rational jury to 
convict him of theft.  We review an insufficiency of evidence claim de novo, 
asking whether, considering all reasonable inferences in the State’s favor, a 
rational jury could have found each element of the crime beyond a reasonable 
doubt.2   
(8) 
White argues there was an insufficient nexus between the missing 
televisions and his “taking, exercising control, or obtaining” of them.  He claims 
that the absence of video evidence showing him actually shuffling the contents of 
any boxes, or any direct evidence of his intent to deprive Walmart of the 
merchandise, means that the jury could not have found beyond a reasonable doubt 
that each element of the crime had been established. 
                                                 
1 11 Del. C. § 841(c)(1). 
2 Monroe v. State, 28 A.3d 418, 430 (Del. 2011). 
5 
 
(9) 
The State had to provide sufficient evidence to prove, beyond a 
reasonable doubt, that White: (1) took, exercised control over, or obtained the 
televisions; and (2) had the intent to deprive Walmart of them or to appropriate 
them from the store.3  The State was not required to do this with direct evidence.  
Circumstantial evidence—provided it was sufficient to prove the elements of theft 
beyond a reasonable doubt—was sufficient.4 
(10) The State presented sufficient circumstantial evidence that a rational 
jury could have found White guilty.  Specifically, the State played video at trial of 
White and his accomplices moving boxes and purchasing merchandise in boxes in 
the Walmart, narrated by asset protection employee Michael Welfield.  White and 
the others could be seen moving Vizio televisions into the “site-to-store” bins, 
emptying large boxes and moving the empty boxes into the same area, after a few 
minutes returning the large boxes to the sales floor, and finally purchasing the 
large boxes.  White and the others had no reason to move merchandise into the 
“site-to-store” bins, and eight Vizio televisions were missing.  White and the others 
also were communicating throughout the video shown to the jury, and appeared to 
be coordinating the theft. 
                                                 
3 11 Del. C. § 841(a). 
4 Monroe, 28 A.3d at 430 (“For purposes of [a sufficiency of the evidence] inquiry, this Court 
does not distinguish between direct and circumstantial evidence of a defendant’s guilt.”); Skinner 
v. State, 575 A.2d 1108, 1121 (Del. 1990). 
6 
 
(11) The “nexus” that White contends was absent from the State’s case 
existed where White can be seen on the surveillance footage acting as an obvious 
and active participant in the scheme to steal televisions.  Further, there was no 
requirement that the State produce video evidence of White actually shuffling 
televisions between boxes in order to convict him.5  Given the compelling 
circumstantial evidence put on at trial, the jury could have rationally concluded, 
beyond a reasonable doubt, that White took and intended to deprive Walmart of the 
televisions. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
5See Vincent v. State, 996 A.2d 777, 779-80 (Del. 2010) (finding sufficient circumstantial 
evidence for criminal mischief conviction where defendant was the only person near the 
damaged vehicle and a witness heard a “thump,” though no one actually saw the defendant inflict 
damage on the car).