J. M., A CHILD, 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 regarding the purchase price of a stolen item was insufficient to establish its fair market value at the time of the theft for purposes of a grand theft charge.
A child was found guilty of grand theft of a goped. The state's only evidence of the goped's value was the owner's testimony that he paid between $315…
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
TAYLOR, J.
J.M., a child, was found guilty of grand theft of a goped. The trial court withheld adjudication of delinquency and placed him on probation. J.M. appeals, contending that the court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on the grand theft charge because the state failed to establish that the value of the stolen goped exceeded $300.00. Section 812.014(2)(c)l, Florida Statutes. We agree and reverse.
At trial, the only evidence introduced by the state concerning the value of the stolen goped was the owner’s testimony that he paid between .$315 and $320 for the vehicle when he purchased it three to four months before the subject theft. Although the owner would have been competent to testify as to the market value of the goped, his sole reference to the cost of the goped was insufficient to establish that the goped’s fair market value was $300 or more at the time it was stolen. As such, the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on the grand theft charge should have been granted. See D.H. v. State, 864 So. 2d 588, 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Soderman v. State, 844 So. 2d 823, 823-24 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Raynor v. State, 341 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
Accordingly, we reverse the finding that J.M. was guilty of grand theft, and remand with directions to find J.M. guilty of the lesser offense of petit theft and enter disposition accordingly. See Soderman, 844 So. 2d at 823-24; Randolph v. State, 608 So. 2d 573, 575 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992).
REVERSED.
STONE and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chappell v. State, 200 So. 3d 159 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…ty, the manner in which the items were used, the condition and quality of the items, and the percentage of depreciation of the items since their purchase.” Pickett [v. State ], 839 So. 2d [860,] 861-62 [ (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) ]; see also J.M. v. State, 890 So. 2d 369, 370 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).... 955 So. 2d at 1228 (additional citations omitted). In the present case, there was no direct testimony from the victim of the fair market value of the iPad or laptop computer. Thus, pursuant to Smith, to establish the v…
-
Smith v. State, 955 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…the original market cost of the property, the manner in which the items were used, the condition and quality of the items, and the percentage of depreciation of the items since their purchase.” Pickett, 839 So. 2d at 861-62; see also J.M. v. State, 890 So. 2d 369, 370 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (“[O]wner’s testimony that he paid between $315 and $320 for the vehicle when he purchased it three to four months before the subject [*1229] theft ... was insufficient to establish that the goped’s fair market value was $30…
Authorities Cited
- D.H. v. State, 864 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Kennedy v. State, 608 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- Randolph v. State, 608 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- Soderman v. State, 844 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Raynor v. State, 341 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)