BRAHIM v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Mohamed Moustafa Brahim (“Brahim”) was convicted after a bench trial of theft ¹ as a Class A misdemeanor and was sentenced to 365 days all suspended to probation. Brahim appeals his conviction, claiming the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support his conviction. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On February 3, 2024, Wesley Camps (“Camps”), an assets protection investigator for Walmart, responsible for deterring and apprehending shoplifters, observed Brahim and his wife in the Walmart store on 96th Street in Fishers, Indiana. While monitoring live surveillance footage from his office, Camps witnessed Brahim's wife, who had a large purse, entering the women's restroom with two bottles of liquor in her hands and then exiting without the bottles in her hands. She then rejoined Brahim in the store.

[3] Camps continued to observe the monitor and the surveillance video as the couple walked to the self-checkout lanes. At the self-checkout, Camps observed that Brahim did not scan multiple items before placing them into a shopping bag and also did not scan several items in his cart. The store system signals when an item is properly scanned, and Camps witnessed the unscanned items, including Coca-Cola products and potatoes, being placed directly into the cart without any scanning attempt. While Brahim was at the self-checkout, a Walmart employee working as a self-checkout lane host noticed this activity and tried to pause the transaction, pointing out that there may be unscanned items in the cart. Despite this intervention, Brahim proceeded past the final point of sale with the unpaid-for merchandise.

[4] When Brahim passed the last point of sale, Camps apprehended him and escorted him to the loss prevention office. A comparison of Brahim's receipt and the merchandise in his possession revealed that he had paid for only $21.60 worth of items. His cart included multiple items for which he did not pay, including Coca-Cola products and potatoes, which were concealed underneath the bags of other items. The unpaid-for merchandise located in Brahim's cart totaled $367.08 worth of store merchandise. Additionally, the previously observed bottles of liquor were discovered hidden in Brahim's wife's purse. Walmart contacted law enforcement and made a report of shoplifting.

[5] Officer Kenneth Graham of the Fishers Police Department (“Officer Graham”) responded to the shoplifting report and met with Brahim. After being advised of his Miranda rights, Brahim agreed to speak with the officer. When Officer Graham questioned why Brahim was leaving the store with unpaid items, Brahim claimed that the items would not scan, so he simply placed them into his cart before leaving the checkout aisle. This explanation contradicted the surveillance video evidence that showed that Brahim made no attempt to scan several items.

[6] On February 16, 2024, the State of Indiana charged Brahim with Class A misdemeanor theft. A bench trial was held on August 6, 2024, at which the State introduced the surveillance video and the receipt showing the items that were paid for, both of which were admitted without objection and without any limitation as to their evidentiary purpose. Camps also testified as to what he observed and his interactions with Brahim. Brahim testified and stated that he was unaware the items were not scanning. However, on cross-examination, after being asked if he left the store with items he did not pay for and that did not appear on the receipt, he admitted that he did.

[7] At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court found Brahim guilty of Class A misdemeanor theft. The trial court sentenced Brahim to 365 days, all suspended to probation. Brahim now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[8] Brahim argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support his conviction for Class A misdemeanor theft. When there is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, “[w]e neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility.” Gibson v. State, 51 N.E.3d 204, 210 (Ind. 2016), cert. denied. Instead, we consider only that evidence most favorable to the judgment together with all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. Id. “We will affirm the judgment if it is supported by substantial evidence of probative value even if there is some conflict in that evidence.” Id. Further, “[w]e will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Love v. State, 73 N.E.3d 693, 696 (Ind. 2017).

[9] To convict Brahim of Class A misdemeanor theft, the State was required to prove that he knowingly or intentionally exerted unauthorized control over the property of another person, with intent to deprive the other person of any part of its value or use. Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a). Brahim specifically contends that the State failed to present sufficient evidence that he exerted unauthorized control over the property of Walmart. To exert unauthorized control over property means to “obtain, take, carry, drive, lead away, conceal, abandon, sell, convey, encumber, or possess property” of another without the other person's consent. I.C. § 35-42-4-1(a), (b)(1).

[10] Looking at the evidence most favorable to the judgment, Camps observed Brahim and his wife in Walmart shopping and then heading to the self-checkout area. Once Brahim was in the self-checkout area, Camps observed that Brahim did not scan multiple items before placing them into a shopping bag and that there were several items in his cart that were not scanned. The store system signals when an item is properly scanned, and Camps witnessed the unscanned items, including Coca-Cola products and potatoes, being placed directly into the cart without any attempt to scan them. A Walmart employee working in the self-checkout lane tried to pause the transaction, pointing out that there may be unscanned items in the cart. However, Brahim proceeded past the final point of sale with the unpaid-for merchandise. After Brahim was apprehended by Camps, Brahim's receipt was compared with the merchandise in his possession, which revealed that he had paid for only $21.60 worth of items. His cart included multiple items for which he did not pay, which were concealed underneath the bags of other items, and the unpaid-for merchandise totaled $367.08. The evidence presented at trial established that Brahim obtained, took, carried, and concealed the property of Walmart without the store's consent. This evidence was sufficient to prove that Brahim exerted unauthorized control over the property of Walmart.

[11] Brahim asserts that the evidence presented only established actions by his wife and not him. However, Camps testified that he observed Brahim, himself, not scan multiple items and place them in the cart. And after not scanning these items, Brahim proceeded past the final point of sale before being apprehended with over $367 worth of unpaid-for merchandise concealed under shopping bags. Sufficient evidence was presented to support Brahim's conviction, and his arguments to the contrary are requests for this court to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. Gibson, 51 N.E.3d at 210.

[12] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a).

Foley, Judge.

Mathias, J. and Felix, J., concur.