VERDALEN C. SPENCER, 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.
Verdalen Spencer was convicted of grand larceny for stealing electrical wire worth $100 or more. The Florida appellate court reversed, finding the state failed to prove the stolen wire's market value at the time of theft, and remanded for conviction and sentencing on petty larceny instead.
The court held that the cost of wire in place is not the proper measure of value for grand larceny purposes. The relevant value is the market value of the stolen chattel at the time of theft, and the state failed to prove such market value. The new cost of a chattel is insufficient when the chattel was in used condition and differed substantially from standard commercial products.
“The thing stolen was not the installed wire, but was the wire after it had been severed and dropped to the ground. The wire after severance is what must be shown to have had a value of $100.00 or more, if its taking is to constitute grand larceny.”
Establishes the critical distinction between the value of installed wire and the value of the severed wire actually taken
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSpencer was charged with stealing electrical wire belonging to Glades Electric Cooperative, Inc. The wire had been strung on power poles before theft.…
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 Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, Verdalen C. Spencer, the defendant in the trial court, was charged by information under F.S.1965, Section 811.021, F.S.A., with having stolen electrical wire belonging to the Glades Electric Cooperative, Inc., worth $100.00 or more. He was tried in the Circuit Court in Okeechobee County, Florida. The jury found him guilty of grand larceny, and he appeals from the judgment and sentence.
The issue here is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.
The evidence indicates that before the theft the wire was strung on power poles. An employee of Glades Electric Cooperative, Inc. testified that the wire, including *332transportation and installation, cost $.90 per pound. There is evidence that approximately 185 pounds were stolen. The state, therefore, argues that this evidence shows the property stolen had a value of $100.00 or more and is, thus, sufficient to support the verdict of grand larceny.
Under F.S.1965, Section 811.021, F.S.A., an essential element of grand larceny is the value of the thing stolen. The thing stolen was not the installed wire, but was the wire after it had been severed and dropped to the ground. The wire after severance is what must be shown to have had a value of $100.00 or more, if its taking is to constitute grand larceny. It is our conclusion that the cost of the wire in place is not the criterion of value authorized by the statute. Stephens v. Commonwealth, 1947, 304 Ky. 38, 199 S.W.2d 719 and 2 Wharton’s Criminal Law and Procedure, § 449.
For the purpose of classifying the larceny as grand or petty, the value to be used is normally market value at the time of the theft. Hicks v. State, 1937, 127 Fla. 669, 173 So. 815; Lambert v. State, Fla.App.1959, 111 So.2d 68; Suarez v. State, Fla.App.1962, 136 So.2d 367, 369; Escobar v. State, Fla.App.1965, 181 So.2d 193, 17 A.L.R.3d 1390; Moore v. State, Fla.App.1966, 183 So.2d 563; and Todd v. State, Fla.App.1966, 187 So.2d 908. The new cost of the stolen chattel is not sufficient proof of its market value at the time of the theft where as here the chattel was in used condition. Todd v. State, supra; Gamble v. State, Fla.App.1968, 210 So.2d 238. There are other factors present in this case in addition to the used condition of the wire which indicate that its new cost is not sufficient to show its market value at the time of taking. For example, the evidence indicates that new wire comes in coils of 250 pounds each and is easy to use. By contrast, the stolen wire was substantially smaller in quantity, not rolled, and thus presumably not easy to use. It is our conclusion that the state has failed to carry its burden of proving the market value of the wire at the time of taking.
There is, however, ample evidence that the wire stolen had some value at the time of the theft. In conformity to F.S. 1967, Section 924.34, F.S.A., we hereby reverse the judgment and vacate the sentence of the trial court with directions to enter judgment of conviction for petty larceny and to impose sentence accordingly, taking into account the incarceration, to which the defendant has been subjected under the improper judgment and sentence.
CROSS, J., and BOOHER, STEPHEN R., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gilford v. State, 313 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 1975)…ble and based on “wholesale value” and not just wholesale “cost”; there is no way to reduce this to the less than $100 market value necessary to include the lesser offense of petty larceny. “Market value” is of course the standard. Spencer v. State, 217 So. 2d 331 (Fla.App. 4th 1968). But wholesale “value”, as the record here sets forth, absent contrary proof, sufficiently satisfies the recognized test. Had the evidence admitted of any finding on which the jury might have based a breaking and entering with i…
-
White v. State, 274 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…all of which had been stolen from the dwelling. However, the State offered no evidence to establish that this property had a value of $100.-00 or more at the time of the taking, an essential element of grand larceny. Spencer v. State, Fla.App.1968, 217 So. 2d 331. Beyond being apprehended “red-handed” with the stolen property, there was no other evidence or circumstances bearing on the question of appellant’s intent. In such cases it has been said that the best evidence of his intent is what he did steal. Ru…
-
Verdalen C. Spencer v. State, 217 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)…cost $.572 per foot and, therefore, was guilty of larceny in some degree. For purposes of classifying the larceny as grand or petty, the value to be used is normally market value at the time of the theft. (See authorities cited in Spencer v. State, 217 So. 2d 331, District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, opinion rendered November 26, 1968.) In such cases an essential element of the crime of grand larceny is the taking of property having a market value of $100.00 or more at the time of the theft. Here there…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Airlift Int'l, Inc. v. Carr, 187 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Lambert v. State, 111 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- Hicks v. State, 127 Fla. 669 (Fla. 1937)
- Gamble v. State, 210 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Jordan v. State, 136 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)
- Escobar v. State, 181 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Moore v. State, 183 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)