COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 59781 STATE OF OHIO, : : Plaintiff-Appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : and : OPINION CHARLES K. THOMPSON, : : Defendant-Appellant : : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : JANUARY 30, 1992 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Criminal appeal from : Common Pleas Court : Case No. CR-249,023 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : _______________________ APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: Stephanie Tubbs Jones Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 1200 Ontario Street Justice Center Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For defendant-appellant: Warren L. McClelland Assistant Public Defender 1276 West Third Street Room 307 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 -2- NAHRA, J.: On January 27, 1990 at 2:50 p.m., William Black, Jr., a security detective for the May Company, observed Charles K. Thompson, defendant-appellant, and another male enter the store and proceed to walk around the first floor by the leather coats. After about five or ten minutes, the other male picked up two leather coats. Thompson and the other male walked around for approximately five more minutes after which they walked toward the elevator. The elevator arrived and the other male handed Thompson one of the leather coats. Black observed the two men get on the elevator and place the leather jackets under their own coats which they draped over their arms. After observing the two men begin to conceal the leather coats under their own coats, Black dashed downstairs to the lower level to meet the elevator which had signalled that it was on its way down. Black again observed the two men inside the elevator at which time they continued to conceal the leather coats. Once they exited the elevator, Black observed that the leather coats were fully concealed except for a store tag hanging from Thompson's concealed coat. Black requested backup assistance by way of walkie-talkie and proceeded to follow Thompson and the other male to the china department after having followed them through two other departments. Black testified that he believed that the two men were seeking to exit from the Euclid Avenue doors. As Black's superior arrived, Black approached Thompson and identified himself as a member of May Company security. -3- Thompson ran from Black and attempted to pull out and let go of the brown leather coat. Once Black received additional assistance from May Company security, Thompson was arrested inside the store. Mr. Jack S. Screptock, manager of the loss prevention department at the May Company, testified that he responded to Black's call for assistance regarding a shoplifting in progress. Streptock stated that he chased the other male suspect while Black apprehended Thompson; Screptock was not able to stop the other male who fled and was never arrested. At trial the two leather coats in question were identified. The coat in Thompson's possession was valued at $199 while the other coat was valued at $249. At the close of the state's case, Thompson made a motion for acquittal pursuant to Crim. R. 29 which the trial court overruled. Thompson was indicted for one count of theft pursuant to R.C. 2913.02 concerning property of three hundred dollars or more. The indictment also included two prior convictions and two violence specifications. Trial commenced on April 2, 1990 and a jury found Thompson guilty of theft of property less than three hundred dollars. Thereafter, the trial court sentenced Thompson to a term of imprisonment of three to ten years. This timely appeal follows. Appellant's first and second assignments of error are interrelated and shall be examined together. They state: -4- I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND DENIED CHARLES K. THOMPSON HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW AS GUARANTEED BY THE UNITED STATES AND OHIO CONSTITUTIONS WHEN HE WAS CONVICTED ON EVIDENCE WHICH WAS AS A MATTER OF LAW INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE CONVICTION. II. THE VERDICT IS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. The Supreme Court of Ohio has stated: In reviewing a claim that a jury verdict was against the weight of the evidence, or that the evidence was insufficient, a reviewing court's duty is to review the record to determine whether there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Brown (1988), 38 Ohio St. 3d 305, 528 N.E.2d 523, paragraph four of the syllabus, cert. denied (1989), 109 S. Ct. 1177; see State v. Barnes (1986), 25 Ohio St. 3d 203, 209, 495 N.E.2d 922; see also State v. Eley (1978), 56 Ohio St. 2d 169, 383 N.E.2d 132, syllabus. R.C. 2913.02, which defines the offense of theft, states in pertinent part: (A) No person, with purpose to deprive the owner of property or services, shall knowingly obtain or exert control over either the property or services in any of the following ways: (1) Without the consent of the owner or person authorized to give consent; (2) Beyond the scope of the express or implied consent of the owner or person authorized to give consent; * * * Thompson contends that the testimony of Mr. Black, the May Company security detective, lacked credibility. He also argues -5- that he merely was holding the coat for his friend with no initial knowledge that his friend intended to steal the coats. He maintains that the circumstantial evidence presented by the state was consistent with this reasonable theory of innocence. Our review of the record indicates that there was sufficient evidence to convict Thompson of theft beyond a reasonable doubt. William Black, a security detective with the May Company for approximately four years, testified that he became suspicious of Thompson and the other male because they were picking up leather coats without any concern for price or size. Black stated that he observed them conceal the leather coats under their own coats, walk past several cashiers, and proceed to the elevators. Upon exiting the elevator, Thompson and the other male had fully concealed the leather jackets except for a price tag hanging down from Thompson's arm. Black stated that Thompson attempted to rid himself of the leather coat and flee upon being confronted by May Company security personnel. We note initially that the weight to be given evidence and the credibility of witnesses are determinations to be made by the triers-of-fact. State v. Thomas (1982), 70 Ohio St. 2d 79, 434 N.E.2d 1356. We find no reason to disturb the jury's evaluation of the witnesses' testimony. In addition, when the state relies upon circumstantial evidence to prove an essential element of the offense charged, there is no need for such evidence to be irreconcilable with any reasonable theory of innocence to support a conviction. See State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St. 3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492. We believe the -6- evidence in this case, direct and circumstantial, revealed that Thompson was culpable for theft under R.C. 2913.02. Appellant's assignments of error are overruled. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. -7- It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant's conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. DYKE, P.J., and SPELLACY, J., CONCUR. JOSEPH J. NAHRA JUDGE N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announcement of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof this document will be stamped to indicate journalization, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the court and time period for review will begin to run. .