Background

• Fritts was convicted of grand theft, a felony of the third degree, in Florida.
• On appeal, the court reviews de novo the trial court’s denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal, focusing on whether there is substantial, competent evidence to support the verdict.
• Value is the market value at the time and place of the offense and may be proven by original purchase price, depreciation, use, and condition.
• The owner testified to approximate values for the items but the evidence did not establish their value at the time of theft beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The items included a television, a DVD/VCR, and a stereo; the owner’s testimony and purchase prices were not enough to establish value beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given accelerated obsolescence of electronics.
• The court reversed the grand-theft conviction, remanded to enter judgment for petit theft, and directed resentencing accordingly.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Robinson v. State, 986 So.2d 1164 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (review of JOA standard; substantial evidence required after conflicts in the evidence)
• Pagan v. State, 830 So.2d 792 (Fla. 2002) (standard for JOA review)
• Jones v. State, 790 So.2d 1194 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (en banc; JOA standard guidance)
• Pickett v. State, 839 So.2d 860 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (how to prove value of property for theft cases)
• Negron v. State, 306 So.2d 104 (Fla.1974) (precedent on value proof and depreciation)
• Lucky v. State, 25 So.3d 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (obsolescence of electrical components affects value)
• Taylor v. State, 425 So.2d 1191 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (competent testimony on value of stolen property by owner)
• Sellers v. State, 838 So.2d 661 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (owner’s guess alone insufficient to prove value)
• Gilbert v. State, 817 So.2d 980 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (caution on speculative value testimony)