LOREN LEE VICKERS, 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.
The court held that the owners' testimony regarding the value of stolen property was sufficient to establish the requisite value for the crime charged.
[1] The owner of stolen property is qualified to testify as to its market value at the time of the theft.
[2] Testimony from the owner regarding the aggregate value of stolen items can be sufficient to establish market value.
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 intelligenceAppellant was convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony. The state's evidence on the value of stolen property consisted of the…
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 Market Value Of Stolen Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By way of this appeal, appellant challenges his conviction of two counts of breaking and entering with the intent to commit a felony on the basis that the state failed to proffer the necessary testimony to establish the requisite value of the property taken, sufficient to support a conviction of the crime charged.
Testimony was adduced at the trial by one owner as to the items stolen and that in her opinion the aggregate value of the items taken from her home exceeded $100.-00.1 As to the second breaking and entering, a witness testified that in his opinion the items stolen were worth over $150.00.2
It is not necessary to adduce expert witnesses to testify as to the market value of goods at the time of the theft. The owner is qualified to testify as to the market value of his property, Wright v. State, 251 So. 2d 890 (Fla.App. 1st 1971). Although the direct testimony of the owners in the case sub judice does not clearly state the respective owners’ opinion of the market value, the overall testimony meets the bare requirements of competent, substantial evidence to sustain the market value of the goods taken.
By way of caveat, it would be the far better practice if the state, when adducing testimony as to the market value, would simply ask the witness so testifying as to what is his opinion as to the market value of the goods.
The judgment appealed is affirmed.
RAWLS, C. J., and JOHNSON and McCORD, JJ., concur. . She testified that she paid $300.00 for one watch which was gold with diamond chips; the other watch had imitation stones and she paid about $20.00 for it; she paid $295.00 for a stereo that was two years old at the time it was stolen; she had paid between $5.95 and $6.95 apiece for fifteen tapes; and her son had paid $60.00 for a stereo tape player. . A two-year old Garrard turntable with tape player and AM-FM radio for which he paid $350.00 new; two .22 rifles, a .12 gauge shotgun, a .177 caliber pellet pistol, and a blank pistol, all worth in total over $150.00.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
State v. Hawthorne, 573 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1991)…market value of his property. See, e.g., Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Sandlin, 75 Fla. 539, 78 So. 667 (1918) (ordinarily the owner of personal property is presumed to have such familiarity with it as to know what it is worth); Vickers v. State, 303 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA- 1974) (owner of stolen property is qualified to testify as to his opinion of the market value of his property at time of theft), cert. denied, 315 So. 2d 187 (Fla.1975).…
-
A.G. v. State, 718 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…stances when the market value of property would not adequately reflect the victim’s loss, particularly a family heirloom. See State v. Hawthorne, 573 So. 2d 330, 333 (Fla.1991); Anderson v. State, 649 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Vickers v. State, 303 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). The trial court has broad discretion to take into account any factor in arriving at a fair amount that will compensate the victim for his or her loss. See Hercule v. State, 655 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). No abuse of discret…
-
Santana v. State, 795 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…A 1999) ; K.F. v. State, 746 So. 2d 493 (Fla. [*1114] 1st DCA 1999). The owner of property is generally considered to be qualified to testify as to the fair market value of that property at the time of theft. Id.; Fisher; see also Vickers v. State, 303 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), cert. denied, 315 So. 2d 187 (Fla.1975). Although defense counsel basically conceded at the restitution hearing that $6,000 was the fair market value, more problematic to our resolution of the issue before us is the failure of…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wright v. State, 251 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)