LINDA DIANE JACKSON, 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.
Linda Jackson was convicted of grand theft for shoplifting at Bealls Department Store. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the State failed to prove the stolen goods exceeded the statutory threshold value for grand theft because it relied on manufacturer's suggested retail price (MSRP) rather than the actual retail price charged to customers.
The court held that market value under the theft statute means the price actually charged and received by the merchant in usual, customary sales of the goods stolen. The MSRP internal policy of a department store does not satisfy the statutory requirement of market value when goods are actually sold at lower prices. The conviction must be reduced from grand theft to petit theft.
[1] The market value of stolen property is the price actually charged and received by the merchant in the usual, customary sale of the goods.
[2] Evidence of the value of stolen goods is essential to a conviction for grand theft, and the State must prove this value beyond a reasonable doubt.
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“the market value of the property at the time and place of the offense”
The statutory definition of value that the State must prove beyond reasonable doubt for 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 intelligenceJackson was charged with shoplifting at Bealls Department Store. The State presented a receipt showing the actual retail price of stolen goods was $23…
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
This appeal deals with evidence about the value of stolen goods. The issue is whether the evidence supports a verdict of grand theft. We conclude that it is insufficient to support the threshold value and reverse.
The charges involved shoplifting — a euphemism for stealing — at Bealls Department Store. We pass by the evidence of defendant’s involvement in the taking, which was substantial and essentially un-contradicted.
On the issue of value of the stolen goods, the State introduced a “receipt” generated by the store after the offense showing that the actual retail price of the goods stolen was $230. The State also offered the testimony of the then store manager, now a loss prevention specialist for the company. His testimony was this. Bealls offers goods at reduced prices. These goods are booked in inventory at the “manufacturer’s suggested retail price” (MSRP), but are actually sold at reduced prices as shown on a receipt given at the time of sale. He testified that Bealls considers the value of stolen goods to be the MSRP rather than the actual sale price because the sale price is intended only for customers who purchase at that price, not for those who take the goods "without paying.
The statute defines value as “the market value of the property at the time and place of the offense.” § 812.012(10)(a)l, Fla. Stat. (2007). Evidence of value is essential to a conviction for grand theft; the State must prove value beyond any reasonable doubt. Camley v. State, 82 Fla. 282, 89 So. 808 (1921).
We take the statutory term market value to mean the price actually charged and received by the merchant in usual, customary sale of the goods stolen. The cases hold that when the theft is from a department store and salability at a specific price is established, the retail price is deemed the market value. Emshwiller v. State, 462 So.2d 457 (Fla.1985) (jury instruction that retail price establishes market value); Negron v. State, 306 So.2d 104, 108-09 (Fla.1975) (evidence should have shown retail prices of all stolen items and salability at that price near the time of the alleged theft to demonstrate their market value).1 We repeat: a cash register “receipt” generated by Bealls shortly after the theft showed the usual, customary retail price of the stolen goods to be $230.
It follows that the only competent evidence of value is the retail price actually charged customers at the time of the offense. The internal policy of the department store may book the value of stolen goods at the MSRP, even though they are actually sold below that value, but that does not affect the statute’s requirement that stolen goods be given market value. Defendant’s conviction for grand theft must be reduced to petit theft.
Reversed for consistent proceedings.
WARNER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
A.D. v. State, 30 So. 3d 676 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…tate, 13 So. 3d 90 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Bloodsaw v. State, 994 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). Because the value of the stolen items is an essential element of the offense, the value must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. State, 23 So. 3d 206 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Smith v. State, 955 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Toler v. State, 779 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). An estimate of the value of the items, without more, is insufficient. See Jones v. State, 958 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007);…
-
Sanchez v. State, 101 So. 3d 1283 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…evidence establishing the condition, quality, age, or depreciation of the item at the time it was stolen.” K.W. v. State, 983 So. 2d 713, 715 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); see also L.D.G. v. State, 960 So. 2d 767, 767-68 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Jackson v. State, 23 So. 3d 206, 207 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (giving preference to a cash register receipt totaling the stolen items over testimony from store manager). By contrast, where “the value of the property is estimated and no other proof is presented,” the owner’s evidence i…
-
K.Y. v. State, 199 So. 3d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See F.T. v. State, 146 So. 3d 1270 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014); Jackson v. State, 23 So. 3d 206 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Watson v. State, 415 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).…
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
- F.B. v. State, 852 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 2003)
- Honorable Robert A. Butterworth v. Fluellen, 389 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 1980)
- Ozzie Joseph Negron and Teresa Negron v. State, 306 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1974)
- Dade Carnley v. State, 82 Fla. 282 (Fla. 1921)
- Dude Emshwiller v. State, 462 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 1985)