CARDINAL SCOTT, JOHNNIE MAE COBB AND SHARON KING, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE 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.
Three defendants appealed grand theft convictions, challenging whether price tags alone could establish that stolen merchandise exceeded the $100 felony threshold. The Florida appellate court affirmed, holding that retail price tags provide sufficient evidence of value and salability to support grand theft convictions without independent testimony.
Price tags alone provide sufficient evidence of both value and salability to support a grand theft conviction. The court rejected defendants' argument that independent testimony of salability was required, holding that the price tag itself supplies sufficient evidence on this element.
[1] The retail price tag on stolen merchandise is sufficient evidence to establish its value for purposes of grand theft charges.
[2] A defendant is not required to present independent testimony regarding the salability of stolen merchandise when the price tag is introduced as evidence of value.
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“proper to instruct jury in grand theft case that value of goods sold at retail is "the sale price of the merchandise at the time it was stolen"”
Establishes the standard for valuing stolen merchandise in grand theft prosecutions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThree defendants stole ten pairs of pants from a retail store. Each pair bore a price tag of $27.00 at the time of the theft. Two of the defendants we…
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 Sentence Enhancement cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The only evidence of the value of the ten pairs of pants stolen by the defendants from a retail store was the price tags of $27.00 each they bore at the time of the crime. Contrary to the defendants’ sole contention on this appeal from their grand theft convictions, we hold that this evidence was sufficient to support the finding that the goods were worth over $100.1 Emshwiller v. State, 462 So. 2d 457, 458 (Fla.1985) (proper to instruct jury in grand theft case that value of goods sold at retail is “the sale price of the merchandise at the time it was stolen”), aff’g, 443 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Negron v. State, 306 So. 2d 104 (Fla.1974); Thompson v. State, 249 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971).
Although there is no case which so holds, and although the defendants do not suggest what the nature of that evidence might be, they contend that the state must also introduce some independent testimony that the merchandise was “salable” at or near the designated price. This is plainly incorrect. To the extent that the Emshwiller and Neg-ron cases suggest that “salability” might be a factor in determining value,2 they also clearly indicate that the price tag itself supplies sufficient evidence of this element to carry the case to the jury and to support a guilty verdict as to the valuation issue. Negron, 306 So. 2d at 108-09 (“At least the evidence should have shown the retail prices of all the allegedly stolen items in order to clearly demonstrate their market value and a salability at that price near the time of the alleged theft.” [e.s.]); see also Emshwiller, 462 So. 2d at 458.
Two of the defendants who were habitual offenders were given terms of seven and ten years respectively in accordance with their guidelines recommendations. We again reject the defendants’ contention, citing Whitehead v. State, 498 So. 2d 863 (Fla.1986), that the habitual offender statute may no longer be employed to enhance the statutory sentence for the substantive crime, which, in the present case of grand theft, is five years. We have held to the contrary in Condiles v. State, 512 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Wooten v. State, 515 So .2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Johnson v. State, 513 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); and Bellinger v. State, 513 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), and do so again. Accord Hoefert v. State, 509 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).
We certify the same question framed in Condiles to the supreme court.
Affirmed.
. At the time of the crime, the petty theft-grand theft breaking point was $100. It has since been raised to $300. § 812.014(2)(b), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1986).
. Under our view of the pertinent language in Emshwiller and Negron, the defendant would be permitted to introduce his own evidence, contrary to the indication provided by the price tag, that the item is in fact not reasonably salable at that price. (The obvious reason that the marked price is itself sufficient to show value and salability is that it reflects the merchant’s commercial decision that the product may be sold for that amount. (The defendants do not contend that the store deliberately inflated the price in order to trap them into felony convictions when they shoplifted its merchandise.))
The introduction of such countervailing evidence by a theft defendant (which did not occur in this case) would merely make the value and salability questions for the jury to resolve.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
F.T. v. State, 146 So. 3d 1270 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…” as might be required in a non-retail theft case, by external. proof of what the market might determine is a fair price between a willing seller and a willing buyer, or what it might cost for the merchant to replace the stolen item. Scott v. State, 519 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 3d DCA1988). When someone steals merchandise from a retail merchant, he or she is on notice that the sale price as stated on the attached price tag is sufficient to establish the value of the property for retail theft purposes, even if that “…
-
S.P.S. v. State, 801 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…SORONDO, J. (dissenting). I respectfully dissent and would affirm defendant’s conviction for the crime of grand theft. In Scott v. State, 519 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), the accused was charged with grand theft. The only evidence presented by the state to establish the value of the stolen items of clothing were the price tags they bore. This court affirmed the conviction holding that “this eviden…
-
Leon v. Moore, 734 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…nt was accused of stealing the merchandise. In our view this testimony did not constitute hearsay as contemplated by the provisions of the Florida Evidence Code.... ” Watson v. State, 415 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). See generally Scott v. State, 519 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). The fact that the First District has recently come to a different conclusion on similar facts, see Lukaj v. State, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D621, 729 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), is immaterial. The effectiveness of appellate counsel…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Whitehead v. State, 498 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1986)
- Ozzie Joseph Negron and Teresa Negron v. State, 306 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1974)
- Hoefert v. State, 509 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Isiah Bellinger v. State, 513 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Condiles v. State, 512 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Dude Emshwiller v. State, 462 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 1985)
- Dude Emshwiller v. State, 443 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Johnson v. State, 513 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Thompson v. State, 249 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Reese, 249 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)