State v. Payne, 34 Neb. App. 265

Payne was convicted in county court of theft by unlawful taking after a red Trek bicycle and accessories were stolen from the Schneiders’ porch in Lincoln. 1
The State’s evidence of value showed the bicycle and accessories were purchased in 2021 for about $1,000.58, with the bike alone costing $699.99. 2
The jury was instructed that value means the market value at the time and place of criminal appropriation and found the property value was $600. 3
Payne argued the jury instruction should have defined value more fully and that the evidence did not prove the bike’s market value exceeded $500. 4
The district court affirmed, and Payne appealed to the Nebraska Court of Appeals. 5
The Court of Appeals affirmed the theft conviction but vacated the Class I misdemeanor sentence and remanded for resentencing as a Class II misdemeanor. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the jury instruction on value erroneous? 7	Payne wanted Gartner’s fuller definition of value.	The statutory language was enough; value is commonly understood.	No reversible error; instruction properly used statutory language. 8
Was the evidence sufficient to prove value over $500? 9	Payne said only stale purchase price evidence supported value.	Purchase price and condition allowed a reasonable inference value exceeded $500.	Evidence supported theft conviction but not Class I grading. 10

State v. Kalita, 317 Neb. 906 (Neb. 2024) (district court’s appellate review of county court criminal cases is limited to record error or abuse of discretion 11)
State v. Matteson, 313 Neb. 435 (Neb. 2023) (jury-instruction correctness is a question of law reviewed independently 12)
State v. Fernandez, 313 Neb. 745 (Neb. 2023) (theft value findings are reviewed for clear error; greater value means greater punishment 13)
State v. Miller, 312 Neb. 17 (Neb. 2022) (sufficiency review asks whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt 14)
State v. Escamilla, 291 Neb. 181 (Neb. 2015) (circumstantial evidence may support a criminal conviction and is not less probative than direct evidence 15)
State v. Duncan, 293 Neb. 359 (Neb. 2016) (requested instruction must be correct, supported by evidence, and prejudicially refused to warrant reversal 16)
State v. Duncan, 294 Neb. 162 (Neb. 2016) (theft grading requires proof of some value, not a particular threshold value 17)
State v. Dixon, 306 Neb. 853 (Neb. 2020) (market value at the time and place of appropriation governs and purchase price plus condition may prove value 18)
State v. Gartner, 263 Neb. 153 (Neb. 2002) (purchase price alone can suffice for a new item, but not for older property lacking condition evidence 19)
State v. Weik, 206 Neb. 217 (Neb. 1980) (market value may be established circumstantially and need not be proved by exact testimony 20)