State of Missouri v. Ezra J. Smith
2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1234
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In Oct. 2011 a law firm reported a theft that included an HP mini laptop; police later found the laptop at Ezra J. Smith’s home and identified it by serial number.
- The firm’s IT manager confirmed the laptop belonged to the firm and showed the former owner’s name on the welcome screen; it had been used to access Smith’s email.
- At trial the IT manager initially testified the laptop’s purchase price was between $300–$450, then (after memory was refreshed using an officer’s report) testified the invoice showed $550.
- The $550 invoice testimony was the only evidence presented regarding the laptop’s value at the time of the crime.
- Smith was convicted of class C felony receiving stolen property (value ≥ $500), sentenced to seven years (suspended) and five years probation, and appealed arguing insufficient evidence of value.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the felony conviction, entered a conviction for the lesser-included class A misdemeanor (value < $500), and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove the laptop’s market value was $500 or more at the time of the theft | State: invoice showing purchase price $550 supports value ≥ $500 | Smith: purchase price alone (and conflicting testimony) is insufficient to prove market value at time/place of crime | Reversed felony: purchase price alone, without evidence of time since purchase or condition, was insufficient; value deemed < $500 under §570.020 |
| Whether conviction for lesser-included misdemeanor may be entered despite reversing felony for insufficiency | State: other elements proven; only value element failed | Smith: did not challenge other elements | Court: entered conviction for class A misdemeanor and remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Claycomb, 470 S.W.3d 358 (Mo. banc 2015) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- State v. Latall, 271 S.W.3d 561 (Mo. banc 2008) (same evidentiary standard cited)
- State v. Hall, 56 S.W.3d 475 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001) (purchase price, age, condition can support valuation inference)
- State v. Boyd, 91 S.W.3d 727 (Mo. App. S.D. 2002) (purchase-price testimony without sufficient detail too indefinite to prove market value)
- State v. Petalino, 890 S.W.2d 679 (Mo. App. W.D. 1994) (purchase price/age/condition approach to value)
- State v. Brown, 457 S.W.3d 772 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014) (questioning purchase-price-plus-age test; purchase price alone may be insufficient)
- State v. Johnson, 461 S.W.3d 842 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015) (aggregate of multiple high-value items can support value; single close-item requires more evidence)
- State v. Reilly, 674 S.W.2d 530 (Mo. banc 1984) (owner opinion can be substantial evidence of value)
- State v. Slocum, 420 S.W.3d 685 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014) (owner’s valuation testimony can sustain conviction)