DAVID LEE WEATHERSPOON, 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.
Defendant Weatherspoon was convicted of burglary and grand theft after stealing a television set. The District Court of Appeal affirmed the burglary conviction but reversed the grand theft conviction because the state failed to prove the television's value exceeded $100, the statutory threshold for grand theft, and remanded for a petit theft conviction instead.
No. The court held that the state failed to prove the value of the stolen television exceeded $100. The owner's testimony was ambiguous regarding the exact value and did not clearly establish whether it concerned the television's original purchase price or its market value at the time of the theft. Therefore, the grand theft conviction was reversed and the conviction was reduced to petit theft.
[1] Proof of the market value of stolen property at the time of the offense is essential to a conviction for grand theft.
[2] A conviction for grand theft cannot be sustained when the evidence of the stolen property's value is ambiguous and allows for inferences contrary to the required minimum…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Proof of the element of value is essential to a conviction for grand theft and must be established by the state beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt.”
Establishes the high burden of proof required for proving an essential element of grand theft
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant stole a television set from the owner's home. At trial, the owner testified about the television's value but was interrupted by the judge mi…
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 Petit Theft cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Judge.
Defendant seeks reversal of his convictions for burglary and grand theft. The only meritorious point he raises is that the state failed to prove that the value of the stolen television set was in excess of $100. Thus, defendant argues there was no basis for the conviction of grand theft. On that point we agree with defendant.
The jury found the defendant guilty of burglary and grand theft. The trial court sentenced him to fifteen years on the burglary count and five years for grand theft with the sentences to run consecutively.
At trial there was testimony from which the jury properly concluded that defendant stole the television set. The only evidence as to the value of the television set came from testimony of the owner. When asked how much the television was worth, the owner replied “About three — ” before being interrupted by the judge. When asked a second time, the owner stated, “I was paying 90 for it. That’s what I was paying for it.” His further testimony established that the television was six months old when it was stolen.
Proof of the element of value is essential to a conviction for grand theft and must be established by the state beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. Negron v. State, 306 So. 2d 104 (Fla.1974). While inferences can be drawn from the testimony that the television set was worth in excess of $100, contrary inferences may also be drawn from the owner’s statements. Moreover, the owner’s testimony made no reference as to whether the value 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 ty — a 37-foot sailboat, less than a year old— was indicative of an uncontrovertable minimum value which exceeded $100. In Jackson we cautioned that while it was proper there for a jury to have returned a verdict of guilty for grand theft based on the property having a value of $100 or more, that was an instance where “reasonable persons could not doubt that the value of the sailboat as described to the jury was $100 or more.” Jackson at 114. The rationale of Jackson is limited to those rare cases where the minimum value of an item of property is so obvious as to defy contradiction.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and sentence for burglary, vacate the judgment and sentence for grand theft, and direct the trial court to enter an adjudication of guilt of petit theft and to sentence defendant therefor. GRIMES, A. C. J., and DANAHY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Grover Evans v. State, 452 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…in evidence. Proof of the element of value is essential to a conviction for grand theft and must be established by the state beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. Negron v. State, 306 So. 2d 104 (Fla.1974); Weatherspoon v. State, 419 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). Admittedly, an inference could be drawn from the evidence that each coat was worth about $50 or $55. However, we point out that no evidence was introduced as to the value of the three coats found in defendant’s possession. The fa…
-
I.T. v. State, 796 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…e that”); Evans v. State, 452 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)(Sears manager failed to establish market value of stolen coats; only testified as to Sears’ retail value, but did not state specific values or introduce price tags); Weatherspoon v. State, 419 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)(owner failed to establish that value of stolen television was over $100). Because the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the value of the items and, thus, the degree of the crime, we reverse the adjudication of delin…
-
Cofield v. State, 474 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…f the element of value is essential to a conviction for grand theft and must be established by the state beyond a reasonable doubt. Negron v. State, 306 So. 2d 104 (Fla.1974); Evans v. State, 452 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Weatherspoon v. State 419 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). Section 812.-012(9)(a)(l), Florida Statutes, states:' “Value means the market value of the property at the time and place of the offense or, if such cannot be satisfactorily ascertained, the cost of replacement of the property wi…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ozzie Joseph Negron and Teresa Negron v. State, 306 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1974)
- Stonewall Jackson v. State, 413 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Malloy v. State, 397 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)