HOWARD
v.
STATE
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.
A principal with ordering and purchasing authority may testify as to the value of stolen school equipment, but repair cost testimony without underlying documentary evidence cannot support a criminal mischief conviction.
[1] A school principal with responsibility for ordering and purchasing equipment possesses sufficient competency to testify regarding the value of stolen school property.
[2] Testimony regarding repair estimates for damaged property is incompetent to establish value when the actual underlying repair estimates are not admitted into evidence.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLee Howard was convicted of petit theft and criminal mischief in excess of $1,000 in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court. The trial court determined suffi…
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 Value Of Stolen Property cases and more on FLexlaw
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 equipment and materials”). The trial court also correctly determined that there was no competent, substantial evidence to support a conviction of criminal mischief in excess of $1,000. See A.S. v. State, 91 So. 3d 270, 271 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (holding that testimony regarding repair estimate for damaged vehicle should have been stricken where the actual estimates were not admitted into evidence and absent such testimony, there was no competent, substantial evidence demonstrating the element of value). Affirmed.
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Moore v. State, 91 So. 3d 270 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- J.P. v. State, 35 So. 3d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)