Anthony Keith Council v. State of Florida, 206 So. 3d 155

Appellant Anthony Keith Council was convicted of burglary and grand theft for breaking into a Panama City law office and stealing cash, savings bonds, silver coins, a laptop, and various jewelry including two diamond rings.
The State sought to prove the value of the stolen property (to support a felony-grade theft charge over $20,000) through testimony from the victim and the victim’s mother.
The victim’s mother could not state the purchase price of her diamond anniversary ring, did not know about diamonds or diamond prices, and testified she and the prosecutor searched online for a similar ring.
The prosecutor elicited testimony about prices found online without laying a foundation to treat the computer printout or online result as a business record; the testimony was therefore hearsay.
The trial court denied the motion for judgment of acquittal; on appeal the First DCA reviewed whether the State presented competent, substantial evidence that the total value exceeded $20,000.
The appellate court concluded that the testimony regarding the two diamond rings was inadmissible hearsay and that the State failed to prove value beyond a reasonable doubt for the $20,000 threshold, requiring resentencing for the lower degree of grand theft.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of testimony valuing two diamond rings	Testimony from victim’s mother about online price searches is competent to establish replacement value	Testimony was inadmissible hearsay and she lacked personal knowledge	Testimony was inadmissible hearsay; mother incompetent to value diamonds because she lacked knowledge and relied on unsupported online printout
Sufficiency of evidence that theft exceeded $20,000	Combined testimony of victim and mother established value over $20,000	Evidence was legally insufficient because ring values rested on hearsay and uninformed estimates	State failed to introduce competent, substantial evidence that value exceeded $20,000; judgment of acquittal should have been granted on that element
Appropriate measure of value when owner lacks purchase info	Replacement cost (market value) may be used if original value cannot be ascertained	Same, but must be proven by competent evidence	Replacement value appropriate but must be proven by admissible evidence; here it was not proven
Remedy / Sentence legality	Uphold theft conviction and 20-year sentence for theft over $20,000	Resentencing required to lesser felony grade because element not proved	Reverse and remand to resentence for grand theft >$10,000 but <$20,000 (third-degree felony)

Sellers v. State, 838 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (two-pronged test for proving value of stolen property)
Fritts v. State, 58 So. 3d 430 (Fla. 2011) (owner's uninformed estimate is insufficient to prove value)
Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 1981) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
Taylor v. State, 425 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (owner presumed competent to testify on value but not when lacking knowledge)
Cofield v. State, 474 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (computer printouts without foundation are inadmissible hearsay for proving value)
Newland v. State, 117 So. 3d 482 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (replacement value is appropriate when original value cannot be ascertained)