J.P., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
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.
J.P., a juvenile, was found to have committed grand theft of school projectors valued at approximately $800 each. The court affirmed the finding, holding that the school principal's testimony sufficiently established the fair market value of the stolen property at the time of the theft.
The court affirmed, holding that the principal's testimony sufficiently established fair market value. The principal, who ordered and was responsible for maintaining school equipment, was competent to testify as to value, and her testimony regarding purchase price, condition, replacement cost, and direct valuation opinion established that each projector was worth approximately $800 when stolen.
[1] A witness who ordered and is responsible for maintaining school equipment is competent to testify as to the value of that equipment.
[2] Testimony regarding the purchase price, condition, and replacement cost of recently acquired property is sufficient to establish its fair market value at the time of thef…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Having ordered the projectors, and also being responsible for the purchasing and maintaining of all the school's equipment and materials, the principal was competent to testify as to the projectors' value.”
Establishes the principal's qualification to testify about the fair market value of school property.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn May 2008, a Miami Jackson Senior High School principal discovered that multiple projectors, purchased and installed in March 2008, were missing fro…
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 Fair Market Value cases and more on FLexlaw
J.P., a juvenile, appeals from an order finding that he committed grand theft of property valued at $800 or more,1 withholding adjudication of delinquency, and placing him on probation. We affirm.
Facts
On May 27, 2008, the principal of Miami Jackson Senior High School was taking inventory of the total number of projectors in the school when she discovered that a number of projectors were missing. The projectors had been ordered by the principal and purchased by Miami-Dade County Public Schools in late 2007, and were installed in March 2008. J.P. was charged with grand theft after admitting to stealing at least two of the missing projectors.
An adjudicatory hearing was held on March 25, 2009, at which the principal testified that each projector had a value of approximately $800. At the conclusion of the State’s ease, defense moved for a judgment of dismissal, arguing that the State had failed to establish the fair market and value of the projectors at the time of the offense. The motion was denied, and J.P. was found to have committed grand theft of property valued at $1600. Adjudication of delinquency was withheld, and J.P. was placed on probation. This appeal followed.
Analysis
The only issue on appeal is whether the principal’s testimony sufficiently established that the value of the two projectors at the time of the theft was $300 or more ($150 or more per projector). We believe it did. Having ordered the projectors, and also being responsible for the purchasing and maintaining of all the school’s equipment and materials, the principal was competent to testify as to the projectors’ value. Her testimony revealed that each projector’s purchase price was approximately $800, that the projectors were brand new when installed in March 2008, that the crime occurred only two months later in May 2008, and that it would cost another $800 to replace each stolen projector.
Appellant’s reliance on Bloodsaw v. State, 994 So.2d 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) is misguided. In Bloodsaw, we reversed a conviction for grand theft where the State never asked an electrician for his opinion of the value of his tools on the date they were stolen, despite having asked about the cost, manner of use, and condition. Id. at 380. Here, in contrast, in addition to testifying as to the purchase price, condi*182tion, and replacement cost of the projectors, when asked by the State the principal also testified that each projector was worth approximately $800 when they were stolen. Based on the principal’s testimony, we find that the State established the fair market value of the property to be $800 or more at the time of the theft.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. State, 129 So. 3d 1162 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. J.P. v. State, 35 So. 3d 180, 181-82 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); Thompson v. State, 249 So. 2d 51, 51 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971).…
-
Howard v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
-
Howard v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…PER CURIAM. The trial court properly found that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction of petit theft. See J.P. v. State, 35 So. 3d 180, 181-82 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (holding that a principal was competent to testify as to the value of stolen projectors where the principal had “ordered the projectors, and [was] responsible for . . . purchasing and maintaining of all the school’s equipm…
Authorities Cited
- Ballesteros v. State, 994 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)