VINCENT JOSEPH ABOYOUN, 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.
Vincent Aboyoun appealed a restitution order, challenging the State's proof of the value of stolen items. The court held that hearsay testimony regarding the value of four gold necklaces was insufficient for restitution purposes, but affirmed the restitution for other items based on the victim's personal knowledge and testimony.
Hearsay testimony regarding the necklaces' value was insufficient for restitution purposes, requiring a new hearing. However, the victim's testimony about the rings, bracelets, stereo system, sneakers, and cash was sufficient to establish fair market value for restitution because the victim had personal knowledge of purchase prices or could opine on value based on relevant experience.
[1] Hearsay testimony regarding the purchase price of gifted items is insufficient to establish their value for restitution purposes.
[2] A new restitution hearing is required to determine the fair market value of stolen items when the prior proof of value was insufficient.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“This was the only evidence offered to establish their value. The State properly concedes that this hearsay testimony was insufficient to establish value for restitution purposes.”
Establishes that hearsay testimony from the victim about what his parents told him regarding necklace prices was inadmissible and insufficient to prove restitution value.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe victim testified that perpetrators stole cash, four gold necklaces, two gold rings, two gold bracelets, new sneakers, and a car stereo system. For…
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 Owner'S Testimony On Property Value cases and more on FLexlaw
SILBERMAN, Judge.
Vincent Aboyoun appeals a restitution order and contends that the State failed to prove the value of the stolen items. The State concedes, and we agree, that a new restitution hearing is required to establish the value of four gold necklaces that were taken. The State correctly argues that the proof was sufficient to establish the value of the other items.
The victim testified during the original restitution hearing that the perpetrators took from him cash, four gold necklaces, two gold rings, two gold bracelets, new sneakers, and a car stereo system. He testified that he received the necklaces as gifts from his parents and that they told him how much they paid for these items. This was the only evidence offered to establish their value. The State properly concedes that this hearsay testimony was insufficient to establish value for restitution purposes. See Korica v. State, 791 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Therefore, a new restitution hearing is appropriate to determine the fair market value of the necklaces. See id. at 544; Fletcher v. State, 800 So. 2d 309, 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).
With respect to the other gold jewelry, the victim testified from his personal knowledge as to the purchase price of the two rings. He did not know the purchase price of the two bracelets, but he was able to testify concerning their value based on his experience shopping for and purchasing gold jewelry. He testified that all of the stolen jewelry was in good condition. The victim also gave his opinion as to the value of the stereo system, and he testified as to the cost of the sneakers that he had purchased on the day of the robbery.
In Korica, this court acknowledged that “[gjenerally, restitution should be based on the fair market value of the property, unless that amount will not fully compensate the victim.” Korica, 791 So. 2d at 544 (citing State v. Hawthorne, 573 So. 2d 330 (Fla.1991)). In determining fair market value, the factors to be considered are purchase price, the manner in which the property was used, its condition, and depreciation. Id. Moreover, a property owner is generally qualified to testify regarding the fair market value of his or her property. Hawthorne, 573 So. 2d at 333 n. 6.
In Bakos v. State, 698 So. 2d 943, 944 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), the Fourth District concluded that testimony from the victim regarding the purchase price of gold jewelry purchased ten years earlier, which she also opined was its current value, was sufficient to sustain the restitution award. Restitution for a pair of earrings was also upheld based on the victim’s testimony as to their purchase price. Id.
Here, the victim’s testimony regarding the rings and bracelets was sufficient to establish their value for restitution purposes. See id. Similarly, his testimony as to the value of the stereo system and sneakers, and the amount of cash that was taken, was sufficient to support the restitution award for those items. See Hawthorne, 573 So. 2d at 333 n. 6; J.M. v. State, 661 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
Accordingly, we reverse the restitution order and remand for a new restitution hearing on the value of the four gold necklaces and for entry of a new restitution order consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
STRINGER and CANADY, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
K.J. v. State, 866 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Aboyoun v. State, 842 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Hercule v. State, 655 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Nix v. State, 604 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).…
-
Hunter v. State, 48 So. 3d 174 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…4. Finally, the victim testified that her mother had given her a ruby and diamond ring and told her that she had paid $3500 for it. Hearsay testimony is insufficient to establish the value of property for restitution purposes. See Aboyoun v. State, 842 So. 2d 238, 239 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). In Aboyoun, the victim testified that he had received four gold necklaces as a gift from his parents and that they had told him the amount they paid for the items. Id. The court, however, found the testimony did not adequate…
-
Fernandez v. State, 98 So. 3d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…. Johnson v. State, 942 So. 2d 415, 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). The amount of restitution is generally based on the fair market value of the property, unless for some reason that amount will not fully compensate the victim. See, e.g., Aboyoun v. State, 842 So. 2d 238, 240 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Factors to [*732] be considered in determining fair market value are “purchase price, the manner in which the property was used, its condition, and depreciation.” Id. The Florida Supreme Court has identified situations in wh…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Hawthorne, 573 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1991)
- Korica v. State, 791 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- J.M. v. State, 661 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Bakos v. State, 698 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Dusti Marie Fletcher v. State, 800 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)