By Hannah Poploskie
The preliminary hearing of Daniel Green in a theft case from July 2017 was heard before the court Tuesday afternoon. Mr. Green is facing charges of grand theft for allegedly taking items equaling about $1,300 from a Walmart store.
Representing the People was Deputy DA Frits Van Der Hoek, who began the preliminary hearing by calling to the stand the officer who reported to the scene, Officer Boehle. The officer stated that when he was dispatched to the Walmart, he was put into contact with a loss prevention officer, who explained the events of the alleged theft.
According to the loss prevention officer, two men came earlier to the store to purchase a television, but left without buying anything. Later they returned with another man who walked around the store putting larger items in a cart, before ultimately one man pushed the cart past the registers and outside of the store.
Mr. Van Der Hoek then played a portion of the surveillance footage for the court, the first part showing two men shopping, one in a black shirt and one in a red shirt, and the second showing the man clad in black, identified by Officer Boehle as Mr. Green, pushing the cart past anti-theft detectors. Once he passed that area, someone identified as loss prevention approached him. The loss prevention officer recalled that, after confronting the defendant, Green told him he was at the Walmart after a man named Ronnie took him to the store. Ronnie, Green said, told him to take the items because 
Mr. Green’s brother had gotten into some sort of trouble with Ronnie and the other man.
Representing Mr. Green, Monica Brushia began her cross-examination of the officer, concentrating on the video shown and asking the officer if the cart ever left the store. After replying that it did not actually go outside the Walmart store, the officer also conceded that the cart was instead inside the breezeway when Green was approached by loss prevention.
Ms. Brushia asked the officer about Mr. Green’s state, and he described the defendant as crying but not appearing scared. The officer told the court that he did not inquire as to why the defendant was crying. After briefly being asked by the People if any identifying information was given by Mr. Green regarding the man Ronnie he implicated in his interview, Officer Boehle was dismissed.
A witness was called to the stand by the defense, identified as a familial relation to Mr. Green. This man said he had shopped at Walmart with the defendant for Christmas presents on July 23, 2017, arriving in Mr. Green’s vehicle. The witness said he had been wearing a red shirt that day and that he had agreed to pay for any items that the defendant could not afford.
When questioned about whether he had tried to purchase a television earlier from the store, the witness replied that he had attempted the purchase at the same time as the trip with Mr. Green and was told he had to pay for the television at the electronics department separately from the other items. Unhappy with that, the witness decided not to buy the television and to continue with the shopping trip.
The witness left the store prior to the defendant in order to move his car closer. When asked if he had forgotten his wallet as he told the prosecution earlier in the investigation, he clarified he was both moving the car closer as well as getting his wallet. While outside the store, a phone call from his girlfriend distracted him and he spent close to half an hour outside the store before returning to look for Mr. Green.
Upon cross-examination, Mr. Van Der Hoek played the surveillance footage once again of the two men shopping, asking the witness if either person looked familiar. After identifying the man in black as the defendant, the witness was unable to conclusively identify himself other than by his shirt color being red and by his proximity to the defendant in the video.
The focus was then put upon the items in the cart, including a laptop, a Shark vacuum, an air compressor hose, and motor oil. While the witness recounted that there were around ten items in the cart, he had some issue with recollecting the specific items, but he could name a few as belonging to the defendant.
Mr. Van Der Hoek changed his focus to the explanation that the trip was for Christmas presents, asking the witness how early he typically shopped for the holiday. The witness clarified that the earliest he has shopped for Christmas was two months beforehand; when the People pointed out that July is five months before the holiday, the witness claimed he actually spent the entire year shopping and had been confused by the questioning.
The witness then was asked to repeat his intentions of moving the car to the loading zone prior to paying for the items. He told the court he had parked his car in the loading zone prior to that date to make loading the vehicle easier. He then planned to walk back into the store to purchase the items. The witness was then dismissed from the stand.
In arguments, Ms. Brushia repeated that no theft occurred as the cart had never left the store. She contended that Mr. Green simply walked past the registers while waiting for his friend to return and had never committed the charged theft before he was apprehended by loss prevention. He was crying while being interviewed, with little investigation as to why, and with little follow-up in confirming his story.
Mr. Van Der Hoek concluded his case by clarifying that for theft to be charged, the property has to be moved with the intent to take it, meaning the cart did not have to leave the store in order for a theft to occur. He also asked that the previous witness’ testimony be given little weight as he lacked credibility.
Judge Tim Fall ruled that there was sufficient evidence for the defendant to be held to answer, and set the arraignment for January 23 at 9 AM.
