LEROY MARTIN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1972-04-11
No. 71-1171
Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.
260 So. 2d 238 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1972) Positive Treatment
Cited by 5 cases
Topics
Value Of Stolen Property Petit Larceny Grand Larceny Sufficiency Of Evidence

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Value Of Stolen Property cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PEARSON, Judge.

PEARSON, Judge.

After a non-jury trial, the appellant was found guilty of (1) breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit grand larceny, and (2) grand larceny. He was adjudged guilty and sentenced. On this appeal he urges the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the judgment. The only arguable issue is whether there was sufficient proof of the value of the property taken in order to prove that the taking was grand larceny and not petit larceny. See Todd v. State, Fla.App.1966, 187 So.2d 908.

Our review of the record convinces us that the proof was sufficient. The owner set the value of the stolen television set at $160.00. The owner’s statement was supported by the fact that the television set was purchased for that cost exactly 30 days prior to the theft and was in good working condition. Cf. State v. Phillips, 1971, 83 N.M. 5, 487 P.2d 915. These factors distinguish this case from Todd v. State, supra, and numerous cases holding that the purchase price alone of used personal property is not sufficient to establish value.

Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Doyle v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Mid-State Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 635 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
    …ictive construction of the statute is based on the remedial and humanitarian nature of the Unemployment Compensation Law, the purpose of which is to relieve society of the serious menace caused by unemployment. Williams v. Florida Dep’t of Commerce, 260 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); § 443.021, Fla.Stat. (1991). It is also well established that the employer has the burden of proving misconduct on the part of the employee. E.g., Gunther v. Barnett Banks, Inc., 698 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). To meet this…
  • Smith v. State, 305 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
    …t was stolen less than three weeks later on February 11, 1974. Therefore, the facts of this case fell within the exception to the rule that the purchase price of used property is not sufficient to establish value. See, Martin v. State, Fla.App.1972, 260 So. 2d 238. We think the purchase price in this case was sufficient to prove that the property exceeded $100 in value in light of the fact that the state adduced testimony that the saw was recently stolen and was still in good condition (“almost brand new”) at…
  • Adolfo Perez, JR. v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
    …sale established the stolen item was purchased thirty days prior to being stolen, “the facts of [the] case fell within the exception to the rule that the purchase price of used property is not sufficient to establish value”) (citing Martin v. State, 260 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)).…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw