A police officer responded to a break in at a convenience store.

A police officer responded to a break in at a convenience store. When the officer arrived, she observed the store’s window had been broken and that numerous unopened cigarette packages were strewn all over the ground. The officer located A, the thief, and arrested him. At the time A was apprehended, he had numerous unopened cigarette packages on his person. A was charged with the theft of goods worth more than $200. The prosecutor valued the theft at over $200 because the value of the cigarette packages on A’s person, as well as the packages that were located on the store’s floor, exceeded $200. The prosecutor theorized that A entered the store, grabbed multiple cigarette packages at once and inadvertently dropped some on his way out of the store. The prosecutor’s theory was bolstered when the store’s owner testified he did not leave cigarette packages on the store’s floor when he locked up for the night. A was convicted of larceny. On appeal A argues there was no proof he moved any of the cigarette packages that were found on the floor. You are an appellate judge who is assigned to the case. Is there any proof of asportation of the cigarette packages found on the store’s floor?