M.M.S., 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.
Florida appellate court reversed restitution order because trial court improperly relied on hearsay evidence to determine the stolen ring's value, requiring a new hearing to establish fair market value.
A trial court cannot rely on hearsay evidence to establish the value of stolen property for restitution purposes; fair market value must be established through competent evidence.
[1] Hearsay testimony regarding an estimate of stolen property's value is insufficient to establish fair market value for restitution purposes; the victim must testify based…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“the value of stolen bracelets was established by a preponderance of the evidence where the victim testified that, although he did not know the purchase price of the bracelets, he was able to testify concerning the bracelets' value based on his experience shopping for and purchasing gold jewelry”
Court cited Aboyoun v. State for the proper standard: victim may testify to value based on personal experience with similar items, not merely hearsay estimates
M.M.S. was ordered to pay $2,500 in restitution for a stolen ring. At the restitution hearing, the victim testified the ring was a gift from her decea…
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 Victim Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Judge.
M.M.S. appeals an order requiring him to pay restitution in the amount of $2500. The State concedes, and we agree, that the trial court improperly relied on hearsay evidence in determining the value of a stolen ring, and therefore, a new restitution hearing is necessary.
At the restitution hearing, the victim testified that the stolen ring had been a gift from her mother-in-law.1 The victim obtained an estimate of the ring’s value from the store in Saint Thomas where the ring was purchased. There was no other evidence of the ring’s value. The State properly concedes that this hearsay testimony was insufficient to establish value for restitution purposes. See Aboyoun v. State, 842 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Therefore, a new restitution hearing is necessary to determine the fair market value of the ring. See id. at 240 (holding that the value of stolen bracelets was established by a preponderance of the evidence where the victim testified that, although he did not know the purchase price of the. bracelets, he was able to testify concerning the bracelets’ value based on his experience shopping for and purchasing gold jewelry).
Accordingly, we affirm M.M.S.’s adjudication and disposition but reverse the restitution order and remand for a new restitution hearing.
SALCINES and VILLANTI, JJ., concur. . The victim's mother-in-law is deceased.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cartaya Chablis Moore v. State, 47 So. 3d 387 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…n setting the restitution based on these hearsay statements. The victim’s testimony regarding what the jewelry store’s employee told her regarding the estimated value of the unre-covered jewelry was improperly admitted hearsay. See M.M.S. v. State, 877 So. 2d 941, 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Additionally, the victim’s testimony regarding the items she received as gifts was also insufficient to establish the items’ values because the victim did not provide testimony of her own knowledge or opinion regarding the v…
-
Allen v. State, 162 So. 3d 1055 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…ue. See Moore v. State, 47 So. 3d 387, 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). However, a victim’s testimony regarding what a store’s employee told her regarding the estimated value of unrecovered property is inadmissible hearsay. See id.; see also M.M.S. v. State, 877 So. 2d 941, 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (holding that an estimate of a stolen ring’s value from the store where it was purchased was insufficient to establish value for restitution purposes). The testimony in this case was hearsay since the victim did not testify t…
-
Fitzgerald v. State, 952 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…state. See Walentukonis v. State, 932 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (reversing restitution where the trial court took judicial notice of “the NADA Blue Book Average Retail Value” without other evidence as to the value of a truck); M.M.S. v. State, 877 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (finding “trial court improperly relied on hearsay evidence in determining the value of a stolen ring”); Aboyoun v. State, 842 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (remanding for a new restitution hearing where the only evidence offered…
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
- Aboyoun v. State, 842 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)