Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 97-23-93 (2026)
Shoplifting; elements of offense; presumptions; evidence; penalties; aggregation of multiple offenses occurring within same jurisdiction over 30-day period in determining gravity of offense
✓ current as of July 2026
- (1) Any person who shall willfully and unlawfully take possession of any merchandise owned or held by and offered or displayed for sale by any merchant, store or other mercantile establishment with the intention and purpose of converting such merchandise to his own use without paying the merchant's stated price therefor shall be guilty of the crime of shoplifting and, upon conviction, shall be punished as is provided in this section.
- (2) The requisite intention to convert merchandise without paying the merchant's stated price for the merchandise is presumed, and shall be prima facie evidence thereof, when such person, alone or in concert with another person, willfully:
- (a) Conceals the unpurchased merchandise;
- (b) Removes or causes the removal of unpurchased merchandise from a store or other mercantile establishment;
- (c) Alters, transfers or removes any price-marking, any other marking which aids in determining value affixed to the unpurchased merchandise, or any tag or device used in electronic surveillance of unpurchased merchandise;
- (d) Transfers the unpurchased merchandise from one (1) container to another; or
- (e) Causes the cash register or other sales recording device to reflect less than the merchant's stated price for the unpurchased merchandise.
- (3) Evidence of stated price or ownership of merchandise may include, but is not limited to:
- (a) The actual merchandise or the container which held the merchandise alleged to have been shoplifted; or
- (b) The content of the price tag or marking from such merchandise; or
- (c) Properly identified photographs of such merchandise.
- (4) Any merchant or his agent or employee may testify at a trial as to the stated price or ownership of merchandise.
- (5) A person convicted of shoplifting merchandise for which the total price of all items shoplifted in violation of this section is less than or equal to One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) shall be punished as follows:
- (a) Upon a first shoplifting conviction the defendant shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or punished by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed six (6) months, or both .
- (b) Upon a second shoplifting conviction the defendant shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00) or punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a term not less than forty-eight (48) hours, not to exceed six (6) months, or by both .
- (6) Upon a third or subsequent shoplifting conviction where the total price of all shoplifted merchandise is not less than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) or greater than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), the defendant shall be guilty of a felony and fined not more than Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00), or imprisoned for a term not to exceed three (3) years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
- (7) A person convicted of shoplifting merchandise for which the total price of all items shoplifted in violation of this section exceeds One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, punished as provided in Section 97-17-41 for the offense of grand larceny.
- (8) In determining the number of prior shoplifting convictions for purposes of imposing punishment under this section, the court shall disregard all such convictions occurring more than seven (7) years prior to the shoplifting offense in question.
- (9) For the purpose of determining the gravity of the offense under subsection (7) of this section, the prosecutor may aggregate the total price of merchandise shoplifted from the same or separate mercantile establishments within the same legal jurisdiction over a period of thirty (30) or fewer days.
- (10) A person convicted of shoplifting merchandise, acting in concert with, aiding, abetting, or encouraging one or more persons to commit such crime, regardless of whether such others are prosecuted for such crime, for which the total price of all items shoplifted in violation of this section exceeds One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, punished as provided in Section 97-17-41 for the offense of grand larceny.
Laws, 1988, ch. 556, § 1; Laws, 2003, ch. 499, § 8; Laws, 2005, ch. 511, § 2, eff. 7/1/2005.
Amended by Laws, 2024, ch. 476, HB 438,§ 1, eff. 7/1/2024.
Amended by Laws, 2023, ch. 537, HB 795,§ 1, eff. 7/1/2023.
Amended by Laws, 2014, ch. 457, HB 585, 29, eff. 7/1/2014.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 47
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1989–2022 · leading case: Lester Darrell Moore v. State of Mississippi, 187 So. 3d 109 (Miss. 2016).
Lester Darrell Moore v. State of Mississippi, 187 So. 3d 109 (Miss. 2016). “See Miss. Code Ann. § 97-23-93 (Rev.2014). Moore argued that the one-thousand-dollar threshold for felony shoplifting was an essential element of the crime of shoplifting, and the State was no longer able to prove the essential elements of felony shoplifting.”
Williams v. State, 24 So. 3d 360 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009). “A Madison County grand jury indicted Bridgit Williams for felony shoplifting in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-23-93 (Supp.2003). After a jury trial in the Madison County Circuit Court, Williams was convicted and sentenced *362 as a habitual offender to serve…”
Wilson v. State, 967 So. 2d 32 (Miss. 2007). “Miss.Code Ann. § 97-23-93, as amended, states: A person convicted of shoplifting merchandise for which the merchant's stated price exceeds Five Hundred Dollars ($500.”
Andre Jermaine Thomas v. State of Mississippi, 247 So. 3d 1252 (Miss. 2018). “Miss. Code Ann. § 97-23-93 (7) (Rev. 2014).”
Douglas Walters v. State of Mississippi, 206 So. 3d 524 (Miss. 2016). “Thus, the plain language of Section 99-19-1 required the trial court to instruct the jury on the elements of grand larceny as they existed at the time the crime was committed.”
Evans v. State, 919 So. 2d 231 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005). “, a corporation licensed to do business in Mississippi, doing business as Sunflower Food Store # 9079, with the intention and purpose of converting such merchandise to her own use without paying the stated price therefore, contrary to and in violation of Section 97-23-93,…”
Phillips v. State, 25 So. 3d 404 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010). “Phillips was indicted as a habitual offender for felony shoplifting pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-23-93(7) (Rev.2006). Phillips had two prior convictions for theft of property and robbery in Shelby County, Tennessee.”
Brunson v. State, 796 So. 2d 284 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001). “Brunson complains that it was error on the part of the court to add the four-year, three-month sentence to his two-year probation period and that doing so placed the court in violation of Miss. Code Ann. § 97-23-93 (6) (Rev.2000).”
Sumrell v. State, 972 So. 2d 648 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006). “In fact, we note that the given instruction tracks almost exactly the language of Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-23-93(1). In light of the strong presumption that trial counsel acted effectively, Sumrell has failed to prove that his counsel was deficient.”
Sumrell v. State, 972 So. 2d 572 (Miss. 2008). “Miss.Code Ann. § 97-23-93(6) (Rev.2006). ¶ 4.”
Bufkin v. State, 867 So. 2d 285 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004). “Bufkin maintains that the timing of the earlier conviction was such as to put it outside the seven-year window of subsection (8), thus reducing the offense to a misdemeanor punishable under Section 97-23-93(5)(b) of the Mississippi Code.”
Willie Wash v. State of Mississippi, 218 So. 3d 764 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017). “In November 2013, Wash was indicted for one count of third-offense felony shoplifting, in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-23-93(6) (Rev. 2006), for stealing eight containers of Gain washing detergent and one pack of Bounty paper towels from a Walmart.”
Miss. Code Ann. § 97-23-93(1): 6 cases
Williams v. State, 24 So. 3d 360 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009). “A Madison County grand jury indicted Bridgit Williams for felony shoplifting in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-23-93 (Supp.2003). After a jury trial in the Madison County Circuit Court, Williams was convicted and sentenced *362 as a habitual offender to serve…”
Johnson v. State, 44 So. 3d 400 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010).
Boyd v. State, 90 So. 3d 652 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012).
Sumrell v. State, 972 So. 2d 648 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006). “In fact, we note that the given instruction tracks almost exactly the language of Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-23-93(1). In light of the strong presumption that trial counsel acted effectively, Sumrell has failed to prove that his counsel was deficient.”
Sykes v. State, 846 So. 2d 307 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003).
Miss. Code Ann. § 97-23-93(1)(6): 1 case
Charles McLaurin, Jr. v. State of Mississippi, 188 So. 3d 608 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016).
Miss. Code Ann. § 97-23-93(14): 1 case
John Tennesen & Sandra Tennesen v. City of Hattiesburg, Mississippi (Miss. Ct. App. 2022).
Miss. Code Ann. § 97-23-93(2): 5 cases
Evans v. State, 919 So. 2d 231 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005). “, a corporation licensed to do business in Mississippi, doing business as Sunflower Food Store # 9079, with the intention and purpose of converting such merchandise to her own use without paying the stated price therefore, contrary to and in violation of Section 97-23-93,…”
State of Mississippi v. Hattie Hawkins, 145 So. 3d 636 (Miss. 2014).
Sellers v. State, 773 So. 2d 350 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000).
Sumrell v. State, 972 So. 2d 648 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006). “In fact, we note that the given instruction tracks almost exactly the language of Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-23-93(1). In light of the strong presumption that trial counsel acted effectively, Sumrell has failed to prove that his counsel was deficient.”
Watson v. State, 939 So. 2d 806 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006).
Miss. Code Ann. § 97-23-93(2)(b): 1 case
McNulty v. J C Penney Co., 305 F. App'x 212 (5th Cir. 2008).
Miss. Code Ann. § 97-23-93(5): 1 case
Lester Darrell Moore v. State of Mississippi, 187 So. 3d 109 (Miss. 2016). “See Miss. Code Ann. § 97-23-93 (Rev.2014). Moore argued that the one-thousand-dollar threshold for felony shoplifting was an essential element of the crime of shoplifting, and the State was no longer able to prove the essential elements of felony shoplifting.”
Miss. Code Ann. § 97-23-93(5)(6)(7): 1 case
Laird v. State, 755 So. 2d 489 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999).
Miss. Code Ann. § 97-23-93(5)(b): 2 cases
Evans v. State, 919 So. 2d 231 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005). “, a corporation licensed to do business in Mississippi, doing business as Sunflower Food Store # 9079, with the intention and purpose of converting such merchandise to her own use without paying the stated price therefore, contrary to and in violation of Section 97-23-93,…”
Bufkin v. State, 867 So. 2d 285 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004). “Bufkin maintains that the timing of the earlier conviction was such as to put it outside the seven-year window of subsection (8), thus reducing the offense to a misdemeanor punishable under Section 97-23-93(5)(b) of the Mississippi Code.”
Miss. Code Ann. § 97-23-93(6): 10 cases
Sumrell v. State, 972 So. 2d 572 (Miss. 2008). “Miss.Code Ann. § 97-23-93(6) (Rev.2006). ¶ 4.”
Willie Wash v. State of Mississippi, 218 So. 3d 764 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017). “In November 2013, Wash was indicted for one count of third-offense felony shoplifting, in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-23-93(6) (Rev. 2006), for stealing eight containers of Gain washing detergent and one pack of Bounty paper towels from a Walmart.”
Sumrell v. State, 972 So. 2d 648 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006). “In fact, we note that the given instruction tracks almost exactly the language of Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-23-93(1). In light of the strong presumption that trial counsel acted effectively, Sumrell has failed to prove that his counsel was deficient.”
Brunson v. State, 796 So. 2d 284 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001). “Brunson complains that it was error on the part of the court to add the four-year, three-month sentence to his two-year probation period and that doing so placed the court in violation of Miss. Code Ann. § 97-23-93 (6) (Rev.2000).”
Boyd v. State, 90 So. 3d 652 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012).
Miss. Code Ann. § 97-23-93(7): 7 cases
Phillips v. State, 25 So. 3d 404 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010). “Phillips was indicted as a habitual offender for felony shoplifting pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-23-93(7) (Rev.2006). Phillips had two prior convictions for theft of property and robbery in Shelby County, Tennessee.”
Wilson v. State, 967 So. 2d 32 (Miss. 2007). “Miss.Code Ann. § 97-23-93, as amended, states: A person convicted of shoplifting merchandise for which the merchant's stated price exceeds Five Hundred Dollars ($500.”
Lester Darrell Moore v. State of Mississippi, 187 So. 3d 109 (Miss. 2016). “See Miss. Code Ann. § 97-23-93 (Rev.2014). Moore argued that the one-thousand-dollar threshold for felony shoplifting was an essential element of the crime of shoplifting, and the State was no longer able to prove the essential elements of felony shoplifting.”
Williams v. State, 24 So. 3d 360 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009). “A Madison County grand jury indicted Bridgit Williams for felony shoplifting in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-23-93 (Supp.2003). After a jury trial in the Madison County Circuit Court, Williams was convicted and sentenced *362 as a habitual offender to serve…”
Watson v. State, 939 So. 2d 806 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006).
Miss. Code Ann. § 97-23-93(8): 1 case
Bufkin v. State, 867 So. 2d 285 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004). “Bufkin maintains that the timing of the earlier conviction was such as to put it outside the seven-year window of subsection (8), thus reducing the offense to a misdemeanor punishable under Section 97-23-93(5)(b) of the Mississippi Code.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.