CHARLES SINGLETON, 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.
Charles Singleton was convicted of grand larceny based on the value of a stolen purse and its contents. The Florida appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court improperly equated the original cost of stolen items with their market value at the time of theft, and remanded for conviction of the lesser offense of petit larceny.
The conviction for grand larceny is reversed because the evidence does not sustain the requisite value threshold. Original cost is not equivalent to value and cannot be used to establish market value at the time of theft without additional evidence. The court remanded for entry of judgment for the lesser offense of petit larceny with appropriate sentencing.
[1] Original cost of an item is not equivalent to its market value at the time of theft.
[2] A victim is a competent witness to establish the value of stolen property, but their testimony must be reasonable and not inherently improbable.
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“Cost bears on value but is not its equivalent.”
Establishes the key legal principle that original cost of an item cannot be treated as synonymous with its market value at the time of theft.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSingleton stole a victim's purse containing cash and various items including a lipstick (originally purchased for $3.00), a brush (originally purchase…
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 only question in this appeal is whether the evidence of the value of the victim’s purse and the items contained therein sustains Singleton’s conviction of grand larceny. At the most the record will support a finding that there was $87.00 in cash in the purse at the time, and the grand larceny conviction can only be sustained upon evidence that the purse and its contents had a market value of at least $13.00. However, the only testimony is as to the original cost of the articles, and defense counsel was not allowed to cross-examine the victim regarding current value.1 The prosecutor and trial judge *314identified original cost with value and this was plainly error. There is absolutely nothing in this record which will sustain the contention that the victim’s lipstick, which she paid $3.00 for, had a value of $3.00. The State can no more contend that the lipstick had a value at the time of the theft — the material date — than the defendant could contend that its value was determined by what a fence would pay for stolen property. The purse, which the victim valued at $8.00, had cost that sum a year earlier. She could not testify whether the brush, which she valued at $5.00, having paid that sum for it, was a year old or two years old.
We agree completely with the State’s contention that the victim is a competent witness to value,2 but like all witnesses her testimony cannot be accepted when it is so . . inherently improbable or unreasonable, opposed to common knowledge . . . ”3 as to be unworthy of belief. This is an old principle more recently illuminated by Judge Bark-dull in Shell’s City, Inc. v. Westerman.4
Cost bears on value but is not its equivalent. Accordingly the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to enter judgment, pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 924.34 (1969), F.S.A.5 adjudicating Singleton guilty of petit larceny and to impose an appropriate sentence.
In view of the fact that the appellant’s brief was filed tardily and cited no authorities, as F.A.R. 3.7(f), 32 F.S.A. requires, thus imposing upon this court the obligation of annotating this opinion and, as a consequence, the maximum sentence for petit larceny will shortly have expired, the time within which the State may file petition for rehearing is reduced to five days.
Reversed and remanded.
LILES, A. C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gilford v. State, 313 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 1975)…the offender shall be guilty of petit larceny . . . ” . Section 811.021(2), Florida Statutes. “If the property stolen is of the value of one hundred dollars or more, . . . the offender shall be deemed guilty of grand larceny . Singleton v. State, 258 So. 2d 313 (Fla.App.1972); Gamble v. State, 210 So. 2d 238 (Fla.App.1968). . Bailey v. State, 224 So. 2d 296 (Fla.1969). . Section 919.14, Florida Statutes. “Determination of degree of offense. If the indictment or information charges an offense which is div…
-
Butler v. State, 354 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…the stolen item(s) at the time of the theft. Negron v. State, 306 So. 2d 104 (Fla.1974). It is entirely permissible to use the owner or victim to establish the market value. See Kinsey v. State, 237 So. 2d 808 (Fla.3d DCA 1970); Singleton v. State, 258 So. 2d 313 (Fla.2d DCA 1972); Platt v. State, 291 So. 2d 96 (Fla.2d DCA 1974); Vickers v. State, 303 So. 2d 700 (Fla.1st DCA 1974); Beasley v. State, 305 So. 2d 285 (Fla.3d DCA 1974). Upon being questioned by the prosecutor, the owner in the instant case testi…
Authorities Cited
- Addie Irene Catlett v. Chestnut, 107 Fla. 498 (Fla. 1933)
- Jordan v. State, 136 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)
- Wright v. State, 251 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Shell's City, Inc. v. Westerman, 257 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Miller v. State, 212 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)