Again, your confusion is showing. The warrant she was picked up on was for failure to appear. The original charge is totally without relevance here.
Perhaps she snuck back into the store and returned them.
As she was obviously caught, the cigarettes were no doubt returned during apprehension.
Or sent an anonymous letter reimbursing them for the loss and an apology and the store conveniently "lost" it.
Which is dandy, however, that is not an affirmative defense against theft, let alone the actual charge she was eventually picked up on, failure to appear.
Where are the actual people that witnessed this right now? How are their memories? Could they pick her out of a line-up all these years later? I'm no F.Lee Bailey but I pity the company that takes me to small claims court.
They aren't needed. The theft of the pack of cigarettes is a paltry and inconsequential offense when juxtaposed with the more serious charge of failing to obey the summons. As for that, no more proof is required than she didn't answer when her name was called, the judge noted it for the record, and issued a warrant for her arrest from the bench. All of which was neatly recorded by the court reporter.
Did I mention she was hard of hearing? Where is the original summons? Perhaps it listed the wrong place for her to show. Are the original judge and bailiff available for witnesses to the no-show? Did I mention she suffers from amnesia? The American Disabilities Act is supposed to protect people from such injustice as this.