Morris v. State, 334 P.3d 1244

Defendant Earl Morris was arrested after store employees alleged he switched a used Canada Goose parka for a new one and left with the new parka; an Alaska Quest card in Morris’s name was found in the used parka.
At trial the store manager testified the parka was sold at the store for $659.95, Canada Goose’s wholesale was $330, and other authorized retailers listed similar or higher retail prices; defense found an online listing for ~$221 (allegedly unauthorized/counterfeit).
Morris was convicted of second‑degree theft (value range $500–$25,000 under the statute in effect at the time) and appealed, arguing insufficient evidence because “market value” should mean wholesale price.
The controlling statutory provision defined value as the “market value of the property at the time and place of the crime” (or replacement cost if market value cannot be reasonably ascertained).
The court considered whether “market value” has a legal meaning and whether retail price is the proper measure of market value for retail theft prosecutions.
Morris separately appealed his sentence as excessive; the appellate court concluded it lacked jurisdiction and forwarded that portion to the Alaska Supreme Court under Appellate Rule 215(k).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Legal meaning of “market value”	State: term has established common‑law meaning and should be applied accordingly	Morris: term ambiguous; under rule of lenity should be construed as wholesale cost	Market value has settled common‑law definition (price between willing buyer and willing seller); rule of lenity not triggered
Proper measure of market value for retail theft	State: retail price is prima facie evidence of market value in retail contexts	Morris: wholesale price (what retailer paid) should control and would reduce offense degree	Retail price is prima facie evidence of market value for retail goods; wholesale price only relevant to rebut that presumption in special circumstances
Sufficiency of evidence to support felony theft conviction	State: evidence of retail price and comparable retailer listings shows market value > $500	Morris: wholesale price <$500 so evidence insufficient for second‑degree theft	Jury could reasonably find market value > $500 based on retail pricing; conviction affirmed
Jury instruction / claim characterization	State: (implicit) trial conducted under standard definitions of market value	Morris: contends error in instruction (effectively argues misdefinition of offense)	Court treats claim as legal/interpretive (not pure sufficiency). Although trial court refused requested definition, appellate judges conclude any instructional omission was not prejudicial given the evidence and litigated assumptions

Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 (1952) (statutory terms lacking definition are construed with reference to their common‑law meaning)
People v. Irrizari, 5 N.Y.2d 142 (1959) (retail price increases market value; wholesale value improper as controlling measure for retail larceny)
De Nardo v. State, 819 P.2d 903 (Alaska App. 1991) (rule of lenity applies only after statutory ambiguity persists following construction)
State v. Hall, 304 P.3d 677 (Kan. 2013) (market value depends on identity of buyer/seller and market context)