Self-Checkout Shoplifting Conviction Upheld Despite Objections to Evidence
Earlier this month, the Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld a misdemeanor theft conviction against a woman accused of shoplifting at a Walmart self-checkout. In State v. Tucker, the defense objected to the prosecutor introducing a photo of a receipt listing the unpaid items, arguing the State failed to lay proper foundation for the evidence. But the court ruled that testimony from a Walmart employee provided enough foundation to admit the photo, and even if admitting the photo was a mistake, it did not affect the outcome of the trial.
The facts of this case are straight forward. The defendant used the self-checkout at Walmart in Sartell, Minnesota. A member of the store’s asset protection team monitored the person through the store’s surveillance cameras and via a mobile app that tracks the items customers scan in real time. The employee saw the failed to scan nine items before attempting to leave. Following Walmart policy requiring police intervention when shoplifting exceeds $25, the employee called the police, and the person was charged with misdemeanor theft.
At trial, the State introduced a photo of a receipt documenting the items the defendant allegedly stole. Defense counsel objected, arguing the prosecution failed to establish proper foundation because the employee was not present when the photo was taken and did not personally take it. The district court overruled the objection after the employee testified that she recognized the photograph, confirmed its accuracy, and explained that Walmart kept it as part of the store’s business records. The jury found the defendant guilty, and she received a stayed 90-day jail sentence, one year of probation, and a $50 fine.
On appeal, the defendant argued the district court abused its discretion by admitting the photograph and, in doing so, violated her rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The Court of Appeals rejected both arguments. The court explained that under Minnesota law, a photograph can be authenticated by any witness familiar with its contents, even if they did not personally take the photo. The employee’s testimony was enough to meet that standard.
The court also found no Confrontation Clause violation. While the Constitution guarantees a defendant the right to confront witnesses, that right only applies to evidence that plays a significant role in the verdict. In this case, a surveillance video showed the defendant failing to scan the items, and the employee testified based on her direct observations. The court concluded the receipt photo was less persuasive than the video and witness testimony, and any possible error in admitting the photo did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights.
This decision confirms that witnesses with knowledge of the evidence can authenticate photographs even if they did not personally create them. It also shows that convictions are unlikely to be overturned for minor evidentiary issues unless the mistake clearly impacts the outcome of the case. Ultimately, State v. Tucker reinforces the notion that courts will uphold convictions where the overall evidence of guilt is strong, even when technical errors were made by the prosecution when admitting specific pieces of evidence.
Robert H. Ambrose is a criminal defense attorney and DWI lawyer in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Super Lawyers named him a Super Lawyer for the past four years and a Rising Star in the preceding six years. He is an adjunct professor at the University of Minnesota Law School. Criminal Defense Attorney Woodbury, Criminal Defense Lawyer Minnesota, OWI Lawyer Wisconsin.