IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs January 24, 2019

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. SHARLES JOHNSON

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County

No. 105144 Bobby R. McGee, Judge

No. E2018-00810-CCA-R3-CD

The defendant, Sharles Johnson, appeals his Knox County Criminal Court jury conviction 

of theft. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as to the element of intent. We 

affirm the jury verdicts but remand the case for the entry of corrected judgments 

reflecting that the alternative counts of theft are merged.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed and Remanded

JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which D. KELLY 

THOMAS, JR., and ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR., JJ., joined.

J. Liddell Kirk, Knoxville, TN (on appeal); and Kate Holtkamp and Christy Murray, 

Assistant District Public Defenders (at trial), for the appellant, Sharles Johnson.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Renee W. Turner, Assistant 

Attorney General; Charme P. Allen, District Attorney General; and Nathaniel Ogle, 

Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

The Knox County Grand Jury charged the defendant with alternative counts 

of theft of property valued at $500 or less. See T.C.A. § 39-14-103; -105 (2014).

At the November 2016 trial, Walmart loss-prevention associate Brandon 

Shope testified that, on November 11, 2014, while “on the sales floor walking around and 

. . . looking for suspicious activity,” he observed the defendant “moving at a little bit 

faster rate of speed” inside Walmart. Mr. Shope explained that such behavior is typical 

in shoplifting cases, so he began following the defendant “for the rest of [the defendant’s] 

duration of his time in the store.” Mr. Shope followed the defendant to the automotive 

department, where the defendant “selected a car battery and put it in his cart.” According 

03/15/2019
-2-

to Mr. Shope, “[c]ar batteries are a high-theft item,” so, when he saw that the defendant 

did not pay for the battery in the automotive department, he notified his supervisor, 

Andrew Weise, that the defendant had “selected a car battery and ha[d] left the 

automotive department.”

Mr. Shope testified that he followed the defendant to the electronics 

department, where the defendant placed Skylander toys in his cart. The defendant then 

went to the customer service department at the front of the store where he asked for a 

price match on the Skylander toys. Mr. Shope stated that the defendant never removed 

the car battery from his cart. After paying for the Skylander toys at the customer service

counter, the defendant headed “towards the general merchandise side of the store,” and 

Mr. Shope continued to follow him “in case he did go for the door, we were going to 

apprehend him for shoplifting.” Instead of leaving the store, the defendant stopped inside 

the Smart Style Salon (“the salon”) near the exit doors. After leaving the salon, the 

defendant “walk[ed] all the way back across the front of the store to the grocery doors,” 

where he stopped and “spen[t] a short amount of time there talking to the door greeter at 

the grocery side doors.” Next, Mr. Shope saw the defendant “push[] the cart out through 

the grocery doors, past all points of sale and into the vestibule,” where Mr. Shope and 

Mr. Weise apprehended him as “he was literally exiting the second set of doors” leading 

“outside to the sidewalk.” The defendant was escorted to the loss-prevention office, 

where he stated that he knew he was being followed and that “he was joking around or 

that it was some sort of game to him” and that “he just kind of wanted to see if we would 

be apprehending him for what he was doing.” Mr. Shope stated that the defendant did 

not seem to take the situation “as serious as he probably should have.”

Mr. Shope testified that he was very familiar with the store’s surveillance 

procedures and that he used the video surveillance equipment daily. He stated that, in 

this case, he made copies of the video surveillance footage showing the defendant’s 

movements around the store. He explained that the video surveillance cameras in the 

store do not track movement but rather “kind of give an overview look of an area,” and 

they cover “nowhere near 100” percent of the store leaving “very large chunks of the 

store that . . . are not covered by cameras.” The jury viewed video footage taken from the 

store’s surveillance cameras showing the defendant walking through the store, being 

apprehended at the store’s exit, and sitting in the loss-prevention office. Mr. Shope stated 

that there was no footage of the defendant selecting the car battery and placing it in his 

cart because there was no camera on the automotive section.

During cross-examination, Mr. Shope agreed that not every person who 

walks quickly through the store is a shoplifter, but he testified that he would follow any 

person that he observed walking quickly stating, “We follow dozens of people a day and 
-3-

most of them pay and most of them have no idea they were ever being followed.” Mr. 

Shope noted that, although Mr. Weise was also watching the defendant in the store, Mr. 

Weise went to the loss-prevention office “[a]t some point.” Mr. Shope acknowledged

that the defendant did not attempt to conceal the car battery in his cart but stated that it 

was Walmart’s policy to apprehend anyone who took unpurchased merchandise into the 

vestibule.

Walmart Customer Service Manager Pam Strasner testified that on 

November 11, 2014, she was called to the customer service desk to assist another 

associate with a price match for the defendant. She processed the price match request 

and asked the defendant if he would like to pay for the car battery as well, and the 

defendant replied that “he had paid for it in automotive.” Ms. Strasner contacted the 

automotive department to confirm whether the defendant had in fact paid for the car 

battery and was told that he did not pay for it there. Ms. Strasner again asked the 

defendant about the battery, and the defendant insisted that “he had paid for it in 

automotive.” Ms. Strasner described what happened next: The defendant “left the 

Customer Service area and headed towards the general merchandise doors” but “quickly 

went into” the salon. After leaving the salon, the defendant “quickly came past” Ms. 

Strasner, “headed to the grocery side door,” and went to the produce department. Ms. 

Strasner stated that she never saw the defendant pay for the battery.

Walmart Asset Protection Manager Andrew Weise testified that, on the day 

of the offense, Mr. Shope informed him that the defendant had selected a car battery 

without paying for it in the automotive department; after learning this information, Mr. 

Weise began following the defendant around the store. Mr. Weise explained that most 

customers paid for car batteries in the automotive department because the batteries were

under a warranty which required entering the serial number of the battery into the 

warranty system. He testified that he commonly follows those individuals on “a mission 

walk,” which he described as “someone who is walking very quickly, not paying 

attention, really, to what’s going on around them and they look like they’re on a 

mission.” He also pays close attention to items that are high-theft items, including car 

batteries.

While following the defendant throughout the store, Mr. Weise saw him 

“select[] a couple of toys” from the electronics department. The defendant “proceeded to 

the service desk,” which, Mr. Weise explained, can be indicative of “someone possibly 

going to do a fraudulent return.” He notified a customer service manager to “kind of 

keep an eye on it.” Mr. Weise was informed that the defendant paid for the toys at the 

customer service desk but did not pay for the battery. Mr. Weise watched the defendant

leave customer service with the battery still in his cart and proceed to the “general 
-4-

merchandise side of the store.” The defendant entered the salon “for a couple of 

minutes” and then “proceed[ed] to the other side of the store, to the grocery exit.” After 

talking with a door greeter “for a few minutes,” the defendant “exit[ed] through the 

vestibule and out the set of doors with the battery.” When the defendant began heading 

to the grocery side of the store, Mr. Weise “quickly went outside, came back around the 

grocery side of the store, went into our asset protection office, which . . . is in the grocery 

vestibule [area].” Mr. Weise peered through the peephole in the office door, “watching 

for [the defendant] to pass all points of sale and go out the doors.” When the defendant 

began to proceed through the last set of doors, Mr. Weise exited the office and 

apprehended the defendant. Mr. Weise believed that the defendant intended to exit the 

store with the car battery because the defendant did not hesitate to exit and did not turn 

around at any point.

After apprehending the defendant and escorting him to the loss-prevention 

office, Mr. Weise notified a customer service manager to determine the value of the car 

battery. Mr. Weise noted that, while in the loss-prevention office, the defendant “was 

very calm, pleasant, [and] joking.” Mr. Weise stated that the defendant “mentioned that 

he knew we were watching him, and he just kind of did it as a joke to see if we would 

still stop him after him seeing us watch him.” The defendant never said that he intended 

to purchase the battery.

On cross-examination, Mr. Weise testified that it was Walmart’s policy to 

apprehend anyone that took unpurchased merchandise “past all points of sale, and then 

out through the [Electronic Article Surveillance (“EAS”)] system,” which Mr. Weise 

described as the electronic security devices at the doorways of the store. Mr. Weise 

explained that, although it was the store’s policy to apprehend someone who took

unpurchased merchandise through the EAS system, “we like to give them that extra 

chance” and wait until a person begins to exit the final set of doors “before we apprehend 

them.”

The defendant testified that he shopped at the Turkey Creek Walmart “once 

or twice a week” and had “buil[t] a relationship with” some of the employees. On 

November 11, 2014, the defendant went to Walmart to purchase items for upcoming 

family birthdays. He needed to pick his children up at 3:00 p.m. that day, so he knew that 

he “had to be in and out” of the store quickly. He testified that, when he first arrived at 

the store, he went to the toy section and then to the automotive section where he 

measured a battery for a “sand rail” that he had built. He stated that he “need[ed] to find 

out about the cold crank” of the battery to determine whether it was “the right size.” He 

took the battery from the automotive section to the front of the store to make his inquiries 

because he “knew who was working” in the automotive section and knew that “they 
-5-

didn’t know what the heck they were doing.” The defendant noticed that he was being 

followed around the store, which he thought was odd stating, “unless they know you or 

they trying to talk to you, . . . they must think you’re up to something or whatever.” He 

proceeded to the customer service counter at the front of the store with the car battery and 

some Skylander toys in his cart. He asked an employee to price match some items, and 

that employee called Ms. Strasner for assistance. Ms. Strasner asked the defendant about 

the battery, and he told her “I got that from back there.” Ms. Strasner then “whispered to 

the lady. And then I saw her take out a sheet of paper and she wrote something down on 

this piece of paper. She folded it up and handed it to the lady. And I said, get out of 

here.” The defendant testified that he never told Ms. Strasner that he paid for the battery 

in the automotive department; instead, he told her “I got it from back there.” He noted 

that Ms. Strasner was behaving oddly and that “[h]er face was real red” which was “out 

of character from the relationship that [he] had with her.”

The defendant asked who was the manager on duty, but when an employee 

identified the manager, the defendant said, “[W]ell, I won’t be dealing with that 

situation,” and left the customer service area. He walked toward the “front door” with 

the battery, when he again noticed two people he believed were following him. He 

entered the salon for “a few minutes” where he inquired about a haircut “as a joke 

because [he has] something called alopecia.” He explained that he “was putting that joke 

in the middle of that situation, messing with them.” He then walked to the other side of 

the store where he talked with the door greeter, Jimmy.

1

 He again inquired about a 

manager, whom Jimmy identified, but the defendant believed that a manager was not 

available. The defendant then “sort of turned [his] back to him” and “look[ed] to see 

where these guys [we]re that [we]re following [him] around the store.” At that point, he 

knew that he was being followed around the store, and he felt in “a shock” at the 

situation.

The defendant testified that he decided “[t]o keep it up, to confront those 

two people that were following [him] around the store,” but, before he could confront 

them, “they pop[ped] up” and apprehended him. The defendant was taken to the lossprevention office where he had a conversation with Mr. Weise while Mr. Shope was “just 

doing something on the computer.” He contended that he never told Mr. Weise nor Mr. 

Shope that he thought the incident was a game. He stated that he did not think there was 

a problem with carrying unpurchased merchandise into the vestibule past the EAS 

machines because the store often places merchandise for sale in that area. He testified

that, when he took the car battery into the store’s vestibule, he was not stealing it and that 

he had no plans to take it from Walmart’s premises.

 

1

Jimmy’s last name is not provided in the record.
-6-

On cross-examination, the defendant testified that he did not intend to exit 

the store with the battery “[w]ithout being confronted” by store employees. He stated 

that he knew that “[s]ooner or later, because of the interaction and what they were doing, 

. . . we would have some type of confrontation.” It was never his intention, he said, “to 

keep this battery from Walmart”; rather, he intended only to confront the employees 

about the situation. He explained that he did not turn around when walking out of the 

store because he had seen Mr. Weise exit the store when the defendant was in the salon,

and he suspected that Mr. Weise “had went around somewhere to try to meet me or to do 

something different.” The defendant asserted that the shopping cart with the battery in it 

“never made it past the threshold” of the exit doors and “there was still time to also have 

actually left that cart right there.” He testified that it was his intent to leave the cart 

behind “[s]ooner or later.”

When asked why he did not seek assistance with the battery from an 

employee in another department if he did not trust the employee in the automotive 

department, the defendant intimated that if the loss-prevention employees had not 

aggravated the situation and he had “been allowed to go on [his] way, . . . the cart could 

have been taken back with the battery to ask those gentlemen the question that [he] had 

about the battery.” He acknowledged that he did not pay for the battery.

Based on this evidence, the jury convicted the defendant as charged, and 

the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of 11 months and 29 days 

suspended to supervised probation. The trial court noted that after the defendant satisfied 

his court costs, he could petition for his sentence to be downgraded to unsupervised 

probation.

The defendant filed a timely but unsuccessful motion for new trial followed 

by this timely appeal. In this appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the 

evidence as to the element of intent. The State argues that the evidence is sufficient to 

support the jury’s verdicts.

We review the defendant’s claim of insufficient evidence mindful that our 

standard of review is whether, after considering the evidence in the light most favorable 

to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the 

crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 

307, 319 (1979); State v. Winters, 137 S.W.3d 641, 654 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003). This 

standard applies to findings of guilt based upon direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, 

or a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence. State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 

370, 379 (Tenn. 2011).
-7-

When examining the sufficiency of the evidence, this court should neither 

re-weigh the evidence nor substitute its inferences for those drawn by the trier of fact. Id. 

Questions concerning the credibility of the witnesses, the weight and value of the 

evidence, as well as all factual issues raised by the evidence are resolved by the trier of 

fact. State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978). Significantly, this court must 

afford the State the strongest legitimate view of the evidence contained in the record as 

well as all reasonable and legitimate inferences which may be drawn from the evidence. 

Id.

As relevant to this case, “[a] person commits theft of property if, with intent 

to deprive the owner of property, the person knowingly obtains or exercises control over 

the property without the owner’s effective consent.” T.C.A. § 39-14-103(a). “Theft of 

property or services is . . . [a] Class A misdemeanor if the value of the property or 

services obtained is five hundred dollars ($500) or less . . . .” Id. § 39-1-105(a)(1) 

(2014).

Here, the proof adduced at trial established that the defendant selected a car 

battery from Walmart’s merchandise and placed it in his shopping cart. The defendant 

admitted that he did not pay for the battery, and security camera footage showed him 

exiting the store with the battery before he was stopped by loss-prevention associates. 

The defendant contends that because he did not conceal the battery from store employees 

and because he knew that store employees were watching his actions with the battery, the 

State failed to carry its burden in proving that he intended to deprive Walmart of the 

battery. However, the jury heard and rejected the defendant’s testimony that he did not 

intend to deprive Walmart of the battery, as was their prerogative. Questions of witness 

credibility and all factual issues are resolved by the jury. See State v. Cabbage, 571

S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978). Moreover, the jury was free to infer the defendant’s 

intent by circumstantial evidence. See Poag v. State, 567 S.W.2d 775, 778 (Tenn. Crim. 

App. 1978) (“An accused’s knowledge and intent may be proved by circumstantial 

evidence.”) (citing Bennet v. State, 530 S.W.2d 788, 791 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1975); see 

also Hall v. State, 490 S.W.2d 495, 496 (Tenn. 1973)). The video footage showing the 

defendant’s leaving the store with the unpurchased battery is sufficient to support the 

jury’s determination that the defendant intended to deprive Walmart of the battery.

The defendant was convicted of alternative counts of theft of property 

valued at $500 or less for the single act of taking the battery from Walmart. Because the 

judgments in the record do not indicate that the trial court merged the convictions, we 

remand the case for the entry of corrected judgment forms indicating in the Special 

Conditions portion that the jury verdicts are merged into a single judgment of conviction.
-8-

Accordingly, the convictions are affirmed but the case is remanded for the 

entry of corrected judgment forms.

_________________________________ 

JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE