CARTAYA CHABLIS MOORE, 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.
Moore pleaded guilty to grand theft and was ordered to pay $12,408 in restitution. The court affirmed the conviction and probationary sentence but reversed the restitution order, finding that the trial court improperly admitted hearsay evidence regarding jewelry values and victim testimony about gifted items without sufficient foundation.
The victim's testimony regarding jewelry values from a jewelry store employee's statements was improperly admitted hearsay. The victim's testimony regarding gifted items was insufficient because she did not provide testimony of her own knowledge or opinion regarding their values. The restitution order was reversed and remanded for a new hearing, but restitution amounts for items with proper foundation (direct payment testimony, receipts, and condition testimony) were affirmed.
[1] Victim testimony regarding the estimated value of unre-covered jewelry, as relayed from a third party, constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
[2] A victim's testimony regarding the value of items received as gifts is insufficient to establish restitution amounts without testimony of the victim's own knowledge or op…
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 victim's testimony regarding what the jewelry store's employee told her regarding the estimated value of the unrecovered jewelry was improperly admitted hearsay.”
Establishes the core legal error: hearsay testimony was admitted without proper foundation in the restitution hearing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMoore pleaded guilty to grand theft. At the restitution hearing, the victim testified regarding stolen property that included jewelry, clothing, and e…
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
Cartaya Chablis Moore pleaded guilty to one count of grand theft. In addition to receiving a thirty-six-month period of probation to run consecutively to the prison sentence she received for violating her probation in a prior case, the trial court ordered Moore to pay $12,408 in restitution. We affirm the judgment and the probationary sentence without comment. We reverse the restitution order and remand for the trial court to conduct a new restitution hearing.
After Moore pleaded guilty, the trial court held a restitution hearing at which the State called the victim to testify regarding the value of the stolen property. Although certain items were recovered from pawn shops, many items of jewelry, clothing, and electronics were not recovered. The victim could not provide receipts for most of these items. Instead she provided testimony regarding the prices she paid for the items she purchased, estimates on the items she received as gifts, and a business card on which an employee of a jewelry store had listed the values of the pieces of jewelry she purchased from that store.
Moore objected to the testimony as hearsay, arguing that the hearsay evidence presented through the jewelry store business card and the victim’s estimates provided an insufficient basis on which the State could meet its burden of proof. Moore now argues on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the statements to be introduced and in 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 values. See Aboyoun v. State, 842 So.2d 238, 239 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); see also Walentukonis v. State, 932 So.2d 1136, 1137-38 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (Villanti, J., specially concurring) (noting that the victim is unlikely to realize what documentation is necessary to establish restitution amounts and that the restitution process could be improved if the State obtained the values of the items from the victim earlier in the trial process). We note that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in setting restitution amounts for those items for which the victim testified as to the amounts she actually paid, provided store receipts, testified regarding her own opinions of the amounts she and others paid in her presence, and testified regarding the condition of the items. See Aboyoun, 842 So.2d at 240.
Accordingly, we reverse the restitution order and remand for the trial court to conduct a new restitution hearing on the restitution amounts for the unrecovered jewelry for which values were identified based on hearsay evidence and for those items about which the victim did not testify regarding her own knowledge or her *389own opinion. We affirm the judgment and sentence in all other respects.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
VILLANTI and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allen v. State, 162 So. 3d 1055 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…ctim’s testimony as to amounts actually paid, store receipts showing the cost of the items purchased, amounts others paid in the victim’s presence, and the condition of the items are competent evidence which will establish value. 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…
-
Danzey v. State, 186 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…s from his parents and that his parents told him how much they paid for the necklaces. This court held [*1066] that the hearsay evidence was insufficient to establish the value of the necklaces for restitution purposes. Id.; see also Moore v. State, 47 So. 3d 387, 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (“[T]he 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 values.”).…
-
Duncan v. State, 192 So. 3d 654 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…re the victim testified based on her own personal knowledge regarding the purchase price and condition of the television. As such, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in setting the restitution amount for the television. See Moore v. State, 47 So. 3d 387, 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (“[T]he trial court did not abuse its discretion in setting restitution amounts for those items for which the victim testified as to the amounts she actually paid, provided store receipts, testified regarding her own opinions…
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)
- Walentukonis v. State, 932 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- M.M.S. v. State, 877 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Dumas v. State, 877 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)