trans. denied. The State concedes in its brief that Carter's theft conviction should be vacated. Accordingly, we vacate Carter's conviction and sentence for theft. CONCLUSION The trial court did not abuse its discretion when exeluding certain evidence, and the prosecutor's actions were not misconduct resulting in fundamental error. However, Carter's convictions of theft and robbery based on the same act subjected him to double jeopardy and, accordingly, his conviction of theft must be vacated. Affirmed in part and reversed in part. BAILEY, J., and BARNES, J., concur. 1 . Ind.Code § 35-43-4-2(a). 2 . Ind.Code § 35-42-5-1. 3 . Any argument regarding violation of a store policy is more appropriate for a civil case. See Wal-Mart v. Bathe, 715 N.E.2d 954, 958 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (<HOLDING>), trans. denied. 4 . Immediately following the
holding a merchant may be liable in negligence for exercising authority granted under the shoplifter detention act holding that hospital may be held liable for negligence of emergency room physicians under apparent agency doctrine holding that individual defendants may not be held liable for violations under title vii holding that a municipality may not be held liable under section 1983 under a theory of respondeat superi or but may be liable for policies or customs that violate an employees constitutional rights holding individual employees may be liable under title vii