Newland v. State, 117 So. 3d 482

On March 21, 2011, Shane Christopher Newland stole a wall-mounted air-conditioning unit from a trailer.
The State charged Newland with burglary and first-degree petit theft (value $100–$300).
Owner Kenneth Ford testified the unit was 1–2 years old, working when stolen, and that new similar units cost "about $150."
No direct testimony established the unit’s fair market value at the time and place of the offense, nor evidence of condition, quality, or depreciation beyond it being operational.
The trial court denied Newland’s motion for judgment of acquittal on both counts; Newland appealed.
The appellate court affirmed the burglary conviction but found insufficient evidence to support first-degree petit theft and remanded for a judgment of second-degree petit theft.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State proved value > $100 for first-degree petit theft	State argued Ford’s testimony about new-unit cost (~$150) and that unit worked established value ≥ $100	Newland argued State failed to prove fair market value or appropriate replacement cost for a 1–2 year old used unit	Reversed conviction for 1st-degree petit theft; remanded to enter judgment for 2nd-degree petit theft because value > $100 was not proven
Whether replacement cost testimony sufficed without showing market value was unsatisfactorily ascertainable	State relied on owner’s replacement-cost estimate	Newland argued replacement cost may be used only if market value cannot be satisfactorily ascertained and replacement must be for like, similar-aged property	Held replacement cost was improper here because State did not show market value was unsatisfactorily ascertainable and owner testified only about cost of new units, not replacement with similar used unit

Mitchell v. State, 917 So.2d 1056 (Fla. 2d DCA) (value may be proved by market value or evidence of original cost, condition, use, and depreciation)
Pickett v. State, 839 So.2d 860 (Fla. 2d DCA) (factors for determining value include condition and depreciation)
K.W. v. State, 983 So.2d 713 (Fla. 2d DCA) (purchase price alone insufficient without evidence of condition/age/depreciation)
A.D. v. State, 30 So.3d 676 (Fla. 3d DCA) (replacement cost inadmissible unless market value cannot be satisfactorily ascertained)
Ramos v. State, 864 So.2d 1250 (Fla. 5th DCA) (replacement value means replacement with like property similar in value at time of taking)
Doane v. State, 847 So.2d 1015 (Fla. 5th DCA) (replacement cost must reflect similar used property, not merely cost of a new item)