State v. Johnson, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 409

Defendant Terrell G. Johnson was tried and convicted by a jury of first-degree burglary, stealing over $500 (class C felony), and second-degree property damage; acquitted of possession of burglar’s tools. Sentenced to concurrent terms (25 years burglary, 15 years stealing).
Victim was home alone, saw two men breaking in, called 911, and later identified a purple purse and its contents as hers that police found with Johnson present in the house.
Items recovered in the purse (and otherwise linked to the burglary) included: an Apple laptop (purchased 3 years earlier for $2,700), a Dell laptop (purchased 4 months earlier for $700), an iPad, an iPhone, earrings, a ring, cash in a wallet (amount unspecified).
Victim estimated the jewelry was worth less than $200; she could not recall purchase prices for the iPhone or iPad.
At trial the State argued aggregate value exceeded $500; Johnson moved for judgment of acquittal on the stealing-over-$500 count for insufficient proof of fair market value; motion denied and conviction affirmed on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove stolen property value exceeded $500	State: aggregate value of multiple items (new computer, another laptop, Apple devices, jewelry, cash) reasonably supports value > $500	Johnson: owner’s testimony of original purchase prices and ages is insufficient to establish fair market value; State failed to prove market value beyond a reasonable doubt	Court: Affirmed — jury could reasonably infer aggregate market value > $500 from the items’ nature, purchase info, owner testimony, and common-sense evaluation

State v. Gibbs, 306 S.W.3d 178 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) (standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Ecford, 239 S.W.3d 125 (Mo. App. E.D. 2007) (State must prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Calicotte, 78 S.W.3d 790 (Mo. App. S.D. 2002) (State’s burden to prove value of stolen property)
State v. Hall, 56 S.W.3d 475 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001) (prior cases using purchase-price-plus-age evidence)
State v. Holmes, 830 S.W.2d 460 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992) (prior purchase-price-plus-age approach)
State v. Brown, 457 S.W.3d 772 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014) (rejected purchase-price-plus-age test for valuation under Section 570.020)
State v. Porter, 439 S.W.3d 208 (Mo. banc 2014) (appellate deference to jury fact findings)
State v. Slocum, 420 S.W.3d 685 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014) (owner’s opinion on value can be substantial evidence)
State v. Reilly, 674 S.W.2d 530 (Mo. banc 1984) (owner testimony admissible on value)
State v. King, 988 S.W.2d 663 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999) (jury assesses weight of owner’s value testimony)
State v. D.W.N., 290 S.W.3d 814 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009) (jurors may use common sense and life experience in valuation)
State v. Terry, 304 S.W.3d 105 (Mo. banc 2010) (appellate courts will not consider evidence introduced for first time on appeal)