State v. Sterling

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute
controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance
with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
NO. COA14-725
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed: 3 March 2015
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Mecklenburg County
Nos. 11 CRS 255751–52
CHANTE MICHELLE STERLING,
Defendant.
Appeal by Defendant from judgments entered 19 December 2014
by Judge James W. Morgan in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County.
Heard in the Court of Appeals 5 January 2015.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney
General Phillip K. Woods, for the State.
Michelle FormyDuval Lynch for Defendant–Appellant.
McGEE, Chief Judge.
Chante Michelle Sterling (“Defendant”) appeals from judgments
entered upon jury verdicts finding her guilty of committing two
counts of identity theft, two counts of obtaining property by false
pretense, one count of financial transaction card theft, and one
count of financial transaction card fraud. We find no error.
I. Facts and Procedural History
Defendant began working at the corporate office of Belk in
-2-
Charlotte, North Carolina, in March 2011 as a human resources
information systems manager. Defendant worked in a cubicle next
to Megan Murray (“Mrs. Murray”), who was employed as a senior human
resources information systems analyst. Mrs. Murray’s maiden name
is McWaters, and McWaters was still listed on Mrs. Murray’s credit
cards at the time. Mrs. Murray kept her credit cards in her wallet
in the bottom drawer of her desk in her cubicle. At that time,
Mrs. Murray was not using her Wells Fargo credit card because she
was trying to pay down the balance. However, in May 2011, she
noticed from her credit card statement that the balance was
increasing and there were transactions that she had not authorized.
Mrs. Murray realized that her Wells Fargo credit card and one other
credit card were missing from her wallet and called the credit
card company to cancel the cards. The unauthorized transactions
included charges at the Dry Cleaning Spot, Target, and several
restaurants and businesses close to the Belk office, including the
Belk Cafe, which only employees in the Belk office could access.
Kathy Prince (“Mrs. Prince”) worked as a stylist for Belk in
2011, and her husband owned the Dry Cleaning Spot. Mrs. Prince
testified at trial that Joe Byrd, a maintenance technician at Belk,
brought Defendant to Mrs. Prince’s office in 2011 so Defendant
could set up an account with the Dry Cleaning Spot to have her dry
cleaning done. Mrs. Prince testified that she called her sister-
-3-
in-law at the Dry Cleaning Spot and then stepped out of her office
to give Defendant privacy as she gave her credit card information.
Defendant had introduced herself to Mrs. Prince as “Megan,” and
then left a piece of paper with Mrs. Prince on which Defendant had
written the name Megan and her cell phone number. Mrs. Prince
later used that cell phone number to contact Defendant so she could
return Defendant’s dry cleaning to her in the Belk parking lot.
Mrs. Murray testified that approximately three weeks after
reporting the card stolen, she received a call from Mrs. Prince
asking why the charges for the dry cleaning services had been
cancelled. Mrs. Murray said she had not had any dry cleaning done,
and told Mrs. Prince that her card had been stolen. When Mrs.
Murray asked for a description of the woman who had dropped the
dry cleaning off, Mrs. Prince described the woman as African-
American with dark brown hair. Mrs. Murray then told Mrs. Prince
that she, herself, was Caucasian and had blonde hair. Mrs. Prince
gave Mrs. Murray the cell phone number and work extension that the
woman had left with Mrs. Prince in order to have her dry cleaning
returned. Mrs. Murray then identified the work extension number
and cell phone number as those of Defendant.
Raymond Griffin (“Mr. Griffin”) worked in Marietta, Georgia,
as an investigations technician for Target in 2011. Mr. Griffin
testified that, upon the request of a detective, he pulled the
-4-
surveillance video and receipts for transactions on Megan
McWaters’ credit card and Chante Sterling’s credit card at a Target
store in Charlotte. During voir dire, Mr. Griffin testified that
each Target store saved surveillance video, which he could remotely
access using secured servers. Mr. Griffin pulled the video
remotely, saved it to his computer, burned this to a disc, deleted
the files off his computer, and locked the disc in a file cabinet.
The jury viewed this video and was provided with a printout of the
corresponding transactions made by credit cards for Megan McWaters
and Chante Sterling at 12:38 p.m. and 12:39 p.m., respectively, on
8 May 2011 at Register 78 in Target Store 762. Mr. Griffin
testified that he reviewed the surveillance video, had reviewed
nearly one hundred other surveillance videos, and based on his
understanding, the camera was maintained and operating correctly.
He also testified the video played in court was the same one he
had viewed while burning the requested video and receipts to the
disc.
Nicole Washington–Dean (“Ms. Washington-Dean”) testified that
she hired Defendant in 2011 and, during the period Defendant was
employed at Belk, she knew Defendant well enough to recognize her
voice. During the investigation concerning Defendant, Bob Vranek
(“Mr. Vranek”), a Vice President of Loss Prevention at Belk, placed
several calls to Defendant’s cell phone number and, when he finally
-5-
reached her, put the call on speakerphone and called Ms.
Washington-Dean on a separate telephone line to see if she could
verify that Mr. Vranek was speaking with Defendant. Ms.
Washington-Dean testified that she recognized the voice to be
Chante Sterling’s, and heard the person identify herself as Chante
Sterling. Mr. Vranek testified that, when confronted with the
information about Mrs. Murray’s stolen credit cards, the person
identifying herself as Chante Sterling initially denied taking the
cards, but then admitted to taking the cards and using one of the
cards at Target, the Dry Cleaning Spot, and a few other locations
because she was having financial difficulties.
Defendant was indicted on two counts of obtaining property by
false pretense, one count of financial transaction card fraud, one
count of financial transaction card theft, and two counts of
identity theft. A jury found Defendant guilty of all charges and
Defendant was sentenced to a minimum of thirteen months’ and a
maximum of sixteen months’ imprisonment. Defendant appeals.
II. Analysis
A. Sufficiency of the Indictments
Defendant first argues the trial court did not have
jurisdiction to try her on the charge of obtaining property by
false pretense or on one of the charges of identity theft because
the indictments for both charges were fatally defective. We
-6-
disagree.
This Court applies a de novo standard of review to indictments
alleged to be facially invalid because a facially invalid
indictment would “deprive[] the trial court of jurisdiction to
enter judgment in a criminal case.” State v. Haddock, 191 N.C.
App. 474, 476, 664 S.E.2d 339, 342 (2008). “To be sufficient under
our Constitution, an indictment must allege lucidly and accurately
all the essential elements of the offense endeavored to be
charged.” State v. Hunt, 357 N.C. 257, 267, 582 S.E.2d 593, 600
(internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 985,
156 L. Ed. 2d 702 (2003). “An indictment is not facially invalid
as long as it notifies an accused of the charges against him
sufficiently to allow him to prepare an adequate defense and to
protect him from double jeopardy.” Haddock, 191 N.C. App. at 476–
77, 664 S.E.2d at 342. The accused has sufficient notice “if the
illegal act or omission alleged in the indictment is clearly set
forth so that a person of common understanding may know what is
intended.” Id. at 477, 664 S.E.2d at 342 (internal quotation marks
omitted). “In general, an indictment couched in the language of
the statute is sufficient to charge the statutory offense.” State
v. Blackmon, 130 N.C. App. 692, 699, 507 S.E.2d 42, 46, cert.
denied, 349 N.C. 531, 526 S.E.2d 470 (1998).
1. Obtaining Property by False Pretense
-7-
The elements of the offense of obtaining property by false
pretense are:
(1) “knowingly and designedly by means of any
kind of false pretense;” (2) “obtain[ing] or
attempt[ing] to obtain from any person . . .
any money, goods, property, services, chose in
action, or other thing of value;” (3) “with
intent to cheat or defraud any person of such
money, goods, property, services, chose in
action or other thing of value.”
State v. Jones, 367 N.C. 299, 307, 758 S.E.2d 345, 351 (2014)
(quoting N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-100(a) (2013)). The general rule is
that “the thing obtained by the false pretense . . . must be
described with reasonable certainty, and by the name or term
usually employed to describe it.” Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted).
In the present case, the relevant portion of the indictment
for obtaining property by false pretense read:
Chante Michelle Sterling, did unlawfully,
willfully, feloniously, knowingly, and
designedly with the intent to cheat and
defraud[,] obtain services for dry cleaning
from P3 Holdings LLC, a limited liability
company, doing business as Dry Clean[ing]
Spot, by means of a false pretense which was
calculated to deceive and did deceive.
(Emphasis added.) Defendant argues the indictment was defective
because it did not charge her with obtaining property and did not
describe the service with any specificity. Defendant asserts that,
under our Supreme Court’s reasoning in State v. Jones, 367 N.C.
-8-
299, 307–08, 758 S.E.2d 345, 351 (2014), “the term ‘services’ does
not describe with reasonable certainty the property obtained by
false pretenses.” We disagree.
In Jones, “the indictments alleged that [the defendant]
obtained ‘services’ from Tire Kingdom and Maaco.” Jones, 367 N.C.
at 307, 758 S.E.2d at 351. However, the Court determined that
“services” was “not the name or term usually employed to adequately
describe the tires, rims, wiper blades, tire and rim installation,
wheel alignment, and brake services [the defendant] allegedly
obtained from Tire Kingdom, or the paint materials and service,
body supplies and labor, and ‘sublet/towing’ services [the
defendant] obtained from Maaco.” Id. at 308, 758 S.E.2d at 351.
Thus, the Court determined that, “[l]ike the terms ‘money’ or
‘goods and things of value,’ the term ‘services’ does not describe
with reasonable certainty the property obtained by false
pretenses.” Id. at 307–08, 758 S.E.2d at 351. Accordingly, the
Court in Jones held that “the indictments were insufficient to
allege the crime of obtaining property by false pretenses[.]” Id.
However, we are not persuaded as Defendant contends in the
present case, that an indictment that described the property
obtained by false pretense as “services for dry cleaning” from a
specifically named dry cleaning vendor failed to describe the
property obtained with reasonable certainty. Since the term
-9-
“services for dry cleaning” is “the name or term usually employed
to adequately describe” the type of service one usually obtains
from a dry cleaner, cf. id., we conclude that the indictment
described with reasonable certainty the thing of value that was
obtained by false pretense. Therefore, the trial court had
jurisdiction to try Defendant for this charge.
2. Identity Theft
The elements of identity theft are:
A person who knowingly obtains, possesses, or
uses identifying information of another
person, living or dead, with the intent to
fraudulently represent that the person is the
other person for the purposes of making
financial or credit transactions in the other
person’s name, to obtain anything of value,
benefit, or advantage, or for the purpose of
avoiding legal consequences[.]
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-113.20(a) (2013).
In the present case, the relevant portion of the indictment
charging Defendant with identity theft read:
Chante Michelle Sterling unlawfully,
willfully and feloniously did knowingly use
personal identifying information, of another
person, Megan Murray, without that person’s
consent, with the intent to fraudulently
represent that [D]efendant was the other
person for the purpose of making financial and
credit transactions in the other person’s
name.
(Emphasis added.) Defendant argues that the indictment charging
her with identity theft was defective because it did not indicate
-10-
what transactions actually occurred and did not allege that
anything of value or benefit was obtained. We disagree.
Because the third element of the statute is written in the
disjunctive, an indictment sufficiently charges the elements of
the offense if it alleged a defendant knowingly used identifying
information of another person, with the intent to fraudulently
represent the defendant was the other person, for any of the
following three reasons: (1) “for the purposes of making financial
or credit transactions in the other person’s name, [(2)] to obtain
anything of value, benefit, or advantage, or [(3)] for the purpose
of avoiding legal consequences.” See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-113.20;
cf. Jones, 367 N.C. at 305, 758 S.E.2d at 349–50 (considering a
challenge to an indictment for identity theft which examined
evidence supporting only whether the defendant intended to defraud
several individuals “for the purposes of making financial or credit
transactions in [those individuals’] name[s]” (alterations in
original)). Because the language in the indictment was couched in
the statutory language, it was specific enough to inform Defendant
of the offense of which she was accused. See Blackmon, 130 N.C.
App. at 699, 507 S.E.2d at 46. Therefore, the indictment for
identity theft was not fatally defective, and the trial court had
jurisdiction to try Defendant for this charge.
B. Admission of Testimony Regarding Telephone Conversation
-11-
Defendant next argues the trial court erred by allowing the
presentation of testimony of a telephone conversation with
Defendant, during which she admitted to taking and using Megan
Murray’s credit card, because the State did not lay a proper
foundation for the admission of this testimony. We disagree.
“For a court to allow a witness in a criminal case to testify
to the content of a telephone conversation, the identity of the
person with whom the witness was speaking must be established.”
State v. Dial, 122 N.C. App. 298, 309, 470 S.E.2d 84, 91, disc.
review and cert. denied, 343 N.C. 754, 473 S.E.2d 620 (1996).
“[I]dentity may be established by testimony that the witness
recognized the other person’s voice, or by circumstantial
evidence.” Id.
In this case, there was sufficient evidence to identify
Defendant as the person with whom Mr. Vranek and Ms. Washington-
Dean were speaking to lay a proper foundation for admission of the
testimony. First, Ms. Washington-Dean testified that, during the
call to Defendant’s cell phone number, she could hear the speaker
clearly, heard the speaker identify herself as Chante Sterling,
and recognized the voice as Defendant’s. Furthermore, Ms.
Washington-Dean testified that she had employed Defendant in 2011,
saw and spoke to Defendant during the time Defendant worked at
Belk, and knew Defendant well enough to recognize her voice. This
-12-
testimony was sufficient to establish that Ms. Washington-Dean
recognized Defendant’s voice.
There is also ample circumstantial evidence to establish
Defendant as the person to whom Mr. Vranek placed the call. Mr.
Vranek testified he placed a call to Defendant’s cell phone number,
which had been obtained through Belk’s contact protocol, and the
person who answered the cell phone identified herself as Chante
Sterling. Mr. Vranek testified he placed the call on speakerphone
and then made a call to Ms. Washington-Dean on a second phone in
order that she could verify that the person speaking was Defendant.
The voice of the woman who identified herself as Chante Sterling
remained the same throughout the phone call and the substance of
the call revolved around the theft of Mrs. Murray’s credit cards.
The person identifying herself as Chante Sterling initially denied
taking Mrs. Murray’s credit cards, but then admitted to taking one
of the cards and using it due to financial problems. The person
said that she used the card at “several different places, one was
the dry cleaner, one was Target, [and] there were a few others.”
While there was some discrepancy as to exactly how this call
transpired, both Ms. Washington-Dean and Mr. Vranek testified that
the person identifying herself as Chante Sterling said she was in
an airport and both testified they heard background noise matching
this location. Based on this evidence, the identity of the person
-13-
to whom the call was placed was established to be Defendant and,
therefore, the trial court did not err by admitting Mr. Vranek’s
and Ms. Washington-Dean’s respective testimony that Defendant
admitted to taking and using Mrs. Murray’s credit card.
C. Admission of Evidence of Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts
Defendant next argues the trial court erred by admitting
evidence of credit card transactions other than the two charges
for which Defendant was on trial because there was no evidence
that Defendant was the person who had used Mrs. Murray’s credit
card to make the other charges. We disagree.
North Carolina Rule of Evidence 404(b) provides:
Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is
not admissible to prove the character of a
person in order to show that he acted in
conformity therewith. It may, however, be
admissible for other purposes, such as proof
of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation,
plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of
mistake, entrapment or accident.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b) (2013). “In evaluating the
admissibility of Rule 404(b) evidence, we start by determining
whether there was substantial evidence presented by the State
tending to support a reasonable finding by the jury that the
defendant committed the other crimes, wrongs, or acts.” State v.
Adams, 220 N.C. App. 319, 322, 727 S.E.2d 577, 580 (2012).
“Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. at
-14-
323, 727 S.E.2d at 580 (internal quotation marks omitted). “The
prosecution can present either direct or circumstantial evidence
so long as it tends to support a reasonable inference that the
same person committed both the earlier and later acts.” Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted). “If the State does offer
substantial evidence tending to support a reasonable finding by
the jury that the defendant committed the other crimes, wrongs, or
acts, then we must conduct a three-pronged analysis regarding the
admissibility of the 404(b) evidence.” Id. “This three-pronged
analysis requires that we first determine whether the evidence was
offered for a proper purpose under Rule 404(b), then determine
whether the evidence is relevant under Rule 401, and finally
determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in
balancing the probative value of the evidence under Rule 403.”
Id. at 323, 727 S.E.2d at 580–81 (internal quotation marks
omitted). “The standard of review applied to the first two prongs
of our analysis is de novo as the crux of both prongs is relevancy;
that is, whether the evidence is relevant to a permissible purpose
under Rule 404(b) and whether that purpose is relevant to the
proceeding under Rule 401.” Id. at 323, 727 S.E.2d at 581.
“Further, a trial court’s rulings on relevancy are technically not
discretionary, though we accord them great deference on appeal.”
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “The standard of review
-15-
applied to the third prong is abuse of discretion.” Id.
Defendant asserts that the State failed to present evidence
that she made the charges listed in State’s Exhibit 1, other than
the charges at Target and the Dry Cleaning Spot. However, the
evidence presented at trial tended to show that the other charges
were made at locations close to Belk’s where both Defendant and
Mrs. Murray worked. These locations included several restaurants
across the street, ExxonMobil, Shell Oil, Yellow Cab, and Charlotte
Area Transit. Additionally, one of those restaurants, Belk Cafe,
was accessible only by employees in the Belk office building. Mrs.
Murray also testified that she rarely ate out for lunch, and tended
to eat lunch at her desk. Mrs. Murray further testified that,
other than a few restaurants directly across the street, she did
not know the locations of ExxonMobil, Original Pancake House, Papa
John’s, or Shell Oil.
All the other charges were made on the same card between
29 April 2011 and 12 May 2011, which is the same period when Mrs.
Murray’s card was used at the Dry Cleaning Spot and Target. Mr.
Vranek also testified that, during the phone call with Defendant,
Defendant admitted to taking Mrs. Murray’s card from her desk and
then “us[ing] it in several different places, one was the dry
cleaner, one was Target, [and] there were a few others.” Finally,
Mrs. Murray and Defendant had adjoining cubicles. Taken together,
-16-
we conclude that the State presented substantial evidence tending
to support a reasonable finding by the jury that Defendant
committed the other wrongs or acts at issue in State’s Exhibit 1.
Upon admitting the evidence, the trial court provided the
jury with the following limiting instruction:
Ladies and gentlemen, as to State’s Exhibit 1,
it’s admitted for two purposes. One, the
charges shown to the Dry Clean[ing] Spot on
May 4, 2011, and to Target on May 8, 2011, are
admitted for substantive evidence in this case
on the crimes charged.
The other charges listed are admitted for a
different reason. So to give you the
instruction regarding that, evidence is being
received tending to show charges other than
those charged — other than those charges
involved in this case. This evidence is
received solely for the purpose of showing the
identity of the person who committed the crime
charged in this case, if it was committed,
that the defendant had a motive for the
commission of the crime charged in this case;
that the defendant had the intent necessary
for the crime charged in this case; that the
defendant had the knowledge which is — strike
that — that there existed in the mind of the
defendant a plan, scheme, system or design
involving the crime charged in this case; that
the defendant had the opportunity to commit
the crime.
If you believe this evidence, you may consider
it only for the limited purpose for which it
was received. You may not consider it for any
other purpose.
The trial court gave this instruction before State’s Exhibit 1 was
published to the jury, and reiterated this limiting instruction
-17-
again when it charged the jury before deliberations. Based on our
review of the record before us, we conclude that the purposes for
which the trial court admitted the evidence were proper, the
evidence was relevant to the proceeding, and the trial court
“guarded against the possibility of prejudice” by instructing the
jury to consider the evidence only for those proper purposes. See
State v. Hyatt, 355 N.C. 642, 662, 566 S.E.2d 61, 74–75 (2002),
cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1133, 154 L. Ed. 2d 823 (2003). Therefore,
we hold the trial court did not err by admitting the evidence of
other credit card charges in State’s Exhibit 1.
D. Challenge to Admission of Surveillance Videotape Evidence
Finally, Defendant argues the trial court erred by admitting
a videotape showing a transaction in a Target store because the
State failed to establish a proper foundation for admission of the
videotape. Specifically, Defendant asserts that a proper
foundation was not laid because the State failed to establish that
the surveillance video accurately presented the events depicted.
We disagree.
This Court reviews whether a sufficient foundation was laid
for the admission of videotape surveillance evidence on an abuse
of discretion standard. See State v. Cook, 218 N.C. App. 245,
251–52, 721 S.E.2d 741, 746, appeal dismissed and disc. review
denied, 367 N.C. 212, 747 S.E.2d 249 (2012).
-18-
“Any party may introduce a photograph, video tape, motion
picture, X-ray or other photographic representation as substantive
evidence upon laying a proper foundation and meeting other
applicable evidentiary requirements.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8-97
(2013). A proper foundation can be laid if any of the following
four elements are met:
(1) Testimony that the motion picture or
videotape fairly and accurately illustrates
the events filmed; (2) proper testimony
concerning the checking and operation of the
video camera and the chain of evidence
concerning the videotape; (3) testimony that
the photographs introduced at trial were the
same as those [the witness] had inspected
immediately after processing; or (4) testimony
that the videotape had not been edited, and
that the picture fairly and accurately
recorded the actual appearance of the area
photographed.
Cook, 218 N.C. App. at 252, 721 S.E.2d at 746 (internal quotation
marks omitted). There are “three significant areas of inquiry”
for a court reviewing the foundation for admissibility of a
videotape: “(1) whether the camera and taping system in question
were properly maintained and were properly operating when the tape
was made, (2) whether the videotape accurately presents the events
depicted, and (3) whether there is an unbroken chain of custody.”
State v. Mason, 144 N.C. App. 20, 26, 550 S.E.2d 10, 15 (2001).
Where photographic evidence is “introduced as evidence of the crime
itself, and not as illustrative evidence, there [is] no need to
-19-
have a witness testify that they fairly and accurately represent[]
the scene described by testimony.” State v. Kistle, 59 N.C. App.
724, 726, 297 S.E.2d 626, 627 (1982), disc. review denied, 307 N.C.
471, 298 S.E.2d 694 (1983).
This Court has determined that a proper foundation for the
admission of videotape evidence has been laid where a witness, who
“admitted that he did not know how the doggone [camera system]
works,” Cook, 218 N.C. App. at 252, 721 S.E.2d at 747 (internal
quotation marks omitted), could testify that “he viewed the
surveillance video as the technician made a copy of the footage
immediately following the incident,” id. at 252–53, 721 S.E.2d at
747, and further testified that “the footage presented in court
was the same as that which he viewed when the copy was being made
from the surveillance system’s server a few days after the theft.”
Id. at 253, 721 S.E.2d at 747. Similarly, this Court has
determined that a proper foundation was laid for the admission of
surveillance video where a policewoman followed standard
procedures to establish a chain of custody and testified “the
images on the tape had not been altered and were in the same
condition as when she had first viewed them on the day of the
robbery.” Mewborn, 131 N.C. App. at 499, 507 S.E.2d at 909.
In the present case, the videotape at issue was admitted as
substantive evidence; thus, in order for the State to lay a proper
-20-
foundation, it was unnecessary for Mr. Griffin to testify that the
events depicted on the videotape accurately represented the scene.
Here, Mr. Griffin was asked to pull a surveillance video for credit
card transactions using Mrs. Murray’s credit card and Chante
Sterling’s credit card which occurred one minute apart at a Target
store. Mr. Griffin testified he pulled this video upon the request
of a detective, saved it to his computer, then burned this to a
disc, deleted the video from the computer, and then placed the
disc in a locked file cabinet. Mr. Griffin also testified that he
had personally viewed the surveillance video and that it was the
same video as the video played at trial. Moreover, Mr. Griffin
had reviewed close to a hundred surveillance videos in the course
of his work, and based on his understanding and experience, this
video came from a properly functioning and properly maintained
camera. Therefore, we conclude that Mr. Griffin’s testimony was
sufficient to establish that the chain of custody was unbroken and
that the camera and taping system were properly maintained and
were properly operating when this videotape was made. Accordingly,
the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the
videotape evidence.
III. Conclusion
In sum, both the indictments for the charges of obtaining
property by false pretense and identity fraud were specific enough
-21-
to inform Defendant of the offenses with which she was charged.
The trial court did not err by admitting testimony from Mr. Vranek
and from Ms. Washington-Dean regarding their phone call with
Defendant because there was sufficient evidence to establish
Defendant as the person with whom the witnesses were speaking.
The trial court did not err by admitting evidence of the other
credit card charges in State’s Exhibit 1 because there was
substantial evidence establishing Defendant as the person who made
those other charges. Finally, the trial court did not err by
admitting the surveillance video because a proper foundation was
laid for the admission of this evidence.
No error.
Judges CALABRIA and McCULLOUGH concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).