DANNY ROY MALLOY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the owner's testimony of what she would take for the stolen property is insufficient to prove market value for grand theft.
Appellant was convicted of grand theft for stealing a broken clock. The only evidence of the clock's value was the owner's testimony that she "wouldn’…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Market Value cases and more on FLexlaw
McCORD, Judge.
This appeal is from appellant’s conviction of grand theft for which he was sentenced to six years in prison. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the state’s case.
The subject of the theft was a broken wooden mantle clock owned by Lena Buchanan. Ms. Buchanan testified that she had bought the clock in 1915 and that it had been passed around in her family for many years. The only evidence as to value of the clock was Ms. Buchanan’s testimony that she “wouldn’t take $200 for it.” Appellant contends that the state failed to prove that the value of the clock was more than $100 and, therefore, his motion for judgment of acquittal of grand theft should have been granted.
The criterion for value in prosecutions for larceny (theft) is the market value of the property at the time of the theft. Lambert v. State, 111 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959); Suarez v. State, 136 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962). Testimony of the owner as to what he would take for the stolen property is insufficient evidence to support a conviction for grand theft. Hicks v. State, 127 Fla. 669, 173 So. 815 (1937).
Reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgment of conviction on lesser included offense of petit theft.
MILLS, C. J., and THOMPSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allen v. State, 526 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 1988)…ars. The district court rejected, however, petitioner’s argument that the imposition of consecutive sentences impermissibly exceeded the six-year maximum prescribed by section 958.05(2). The court adhered to its earlier decision in Harmon v. State, 397 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), wherein it held that a defendant may be sentenced consecutively whenever separate sentences may be imposed for two or more offenses. Id. at 1219. We disagree and find this case controlled by this Court’s analysis in State v. Go…
-
Weatherspoon v. State, 419 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)…that he was attempting to discuss related to the television set when new or at the time it was stolen. The crime of grand theft, of course, requires proof of the market value when the offense occurred. § 812.012, Fla. Stat. (1979); Malloy v. State, 397 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The state seeks to sustain the verdict of grand theft on the basis of this court’s recent opinion in Jackson v. State, 413 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). There, we held that the nature of certain stolen proper [*405] ty — a 37-…
-
Allen v. State, 515 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…nviction. See also Williams v. State, 485 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Appellant also argues that a trial court may not pronounce consecutive sentences for a defendant designated as a youthful offender. This point is controlled by Harmon v. State, 397 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), wherein this court found that a youthful offender may be sentenced consecutively if need be to protect society and where separate sentences may be imposed for two or more offenses. We, therefore, find that the trial court did no…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lambert v. State, 111 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- Hicks v. State, 127 Fla. 669 (Fla. 1937)
- Jordan v. State, 136 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)