Court Opinion

ID: 9926236
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-24 15:02:14.502085+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:13.233688
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 38
                   ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
                                      DIVISION IV
                                      No. CR-23-314

 AMANDA ECHELBARGER                            Opinion Delivered January 24, 2024
                                APPELLANT
                                               APPEAL FROM THE CRAWFORD
                                               COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
 V.                                            [NO. 17CR-22-348]

 STATE OF ARKANSAS                        HONORABLE MARC MCCUNE,
                                 APPELLEE JUDGE

                                               AFFIRMED

                          RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge

       Amanda Echelbarger appeals her conviction of theft of property from the Crawford

County Circuit Court. On appeal, she argues that the circuit court erred by denying her

motion to dismiss. We affirm.

       On April 29, 2022, the State charged Amanda with theft of property with a value

greater than $1000 but less than $5000, a Class D felony. Amanda was an employee of

Murphy USA in Alma, and the charges related to theft of property from the store.

       The case proceeded to a bench trial on March 23, 2023. Lauren Roseberry testified

that she is the Murphy USA store manager in Alma and that when she opened the store on

March 3, 2022, she noticed missing lottery tickets and cash. She explained that she reviewed

a surveillance video and saw Amanda repeatedly placing lottery tickets and cash in her bag.

The State introduced the surveillance video into evidence.
       Roseberry further testified that she completed a restitution form stating that the

missing cash totaled $1387 and the missing lottery tickets valued $819. The State moved to

admit the restitution form into evidence, but Amanda objected. Her attorney argued that

“there has been no records to indicate how much cash and how many lottery tickets, the cost

of each lottery ticket.” The court overruled her objection.

       Roseberry thereafter explained how she calculated the totals. She stated that the

lottery tickets are numbered and that “every morning we add up how many like $20 tickets,

how many $10 tickets we have. And then we also scan it on a—a scan gun to put it into the

computer. And that’s the amount that we came up with.” She further clarified that she

obtained the amount from the store’s records. As to the cash, Roseberry stated that the

store’s electronic safe records the cash deposited, and she compared that total to the amount

deposited in the store’s cash register. She stated that “[t]he two shifts that day that did not

belong to [Amanda], the money was there and accounted for. And the money from

[Amanda’s] shift was not.”

       On cross-examination, Roseberry stated that employees count lottery tickets each shift

and that there was “a chunk missing from” Amanda’s shift. She further clarified that the

number of tickets sold is documented by the store’s register. She also acknowledged that she

did not provide the State with the records she used in making her calculations.

       At the conclusion of the State’s case, Amanda moved to dismiss the charge. She

argued that the State failed to present documents showing the amount of money taken or

the number of lottery tickets taken and their value. The court denied Amanda’s motion.

                                              2
       The court thereafter found Amanda guilty of theft of property, a Class D felony. The

court sentenced Amanda to six years’ suspended imposition of sentence with 120 days in the

regional correctional facility. The court also ordered her to pay $2206 in restitution. Amanda

appeals the denial of her motion to dismiss.

       A motion to dismiss during a bench trial is a challenge to the sufficiency of the

evidence. Sharp v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 506, 588 S.W.3d 770. In reviewing a challenge to

the sufficiency of the evidence, this court determines whether the verdict is supported by

substantial evidence, direct or circumstantial. Id. Substantial evidence is evidence forceful

enough to compel a conclusion one way or the other beyond suspicion or conjecture. Id. We

must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. Id. Additionally, the weight

of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses are matters for the fact-finder, not for this

court on appeal. Id.

       On appeal, Amanda argues that the State presented insufficient evidence of the value

of the lottery tickets and cash. She acknowledges the store manager’s testimony and the

restitution form. She, however, complains that the State did not introduce the records that

the store manager relied on to calculate the value. She thus claims that the State merely

presented hearsay evidence.

       Pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-36-103(a)(1) (Supp. 2021), a person

commits theft of property if she knowingly takes or exercises unauthorized control or makes

an unauthorized transfer of interest in the property of another person with the purpose of

depriving the owner of the property. Theft of property is a Class D felony if the value of the

                                                3
property is $5000 or less but more than $1000. Ark. Code. Ann. § 5-36-103(b)(3)(A) (Supp.

2021).

         In the prosecution of a theft-of-property charge, the State has the burden of

establishing the value of the property. Howard v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 573, 386 S.W.3d 106.

Value is defined as the market value of a property or service at the time and place of the

offense. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-36-101(12)(A)(i) (Supp. 2021); Howard, 2011 Ark. App. 573,

386 S.W.3d 106. Value may be sufficiently established by circumstances that clearly show a

value in excess of the statutory requirement, including through the testimony of a witness

who actually knows the value of the property. Howard, 2011 Ark. App. 573, 386 S.W.3d 106;

Moss v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 96.

         Here, the store manager testified that the missing cash and lottery tickets totaled

$2206, and she explained how she calculated the total. This is sufficient evidence of the value

of the property. To the extent that Amanda argues that we cannot consider the store

manager’s testimony because the testimony contains hearsay, when reviewing the sufficiency

of the evidence, this court considers all the evidence, whether admitted properly or

erroneously. Campbell v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 59, 512 S.W.3d 663. Further, Amanda does

not raise an evidentiary issue on appeal, and she did not make a hearsay objection to the

circuit court. It is well settled that an appellant must raise and make an argument at trial to

preserve the argument on appeal. Krieger v. State, 2022 Ark. App. 456, at 11, 655 S.W.3d

321, 327. Accordingly, we affirm Amanda’s conviction for theft of property.

         Affirmed.

                                              4
HARRISON, C.J., and HIXSON, J., agree.

Dusti Standridge, for appellant.

Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Adam Jackson, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

                                       5