State v. Slater, 487 P.3d 59

In Dec. 2018, Slater admitted stealing multiple suitcases from an unlocked SUV; recovered items included clothing, personal items, and two laptops (one MacBook).
Victims prepared an itemized spreadsheet (admitted as evidence) listing 157 items with a column labeled “Replacement Value,” totaling $14,411.90; many items were recently purchased and in like-new condition.
At bench trial, the State relied solely on the victims’ spreadsheet and testimony about how replacement costs were determined; victims generally did not investigate used/secondary-market prices.
The trial court concluded market value was not reasonably ascertainable and relied on replacement value to find the stolen property exceeded $10,000, convicting Slater of aggravated theft in the first degree and unlawful entry.
On appeal Slater argued (1) the court erred in using replacement value because market value was reasonably ascertainable and (2) the State failed to prove a culpable mental state as to value (plain-error review).

Issue	State's Argument	Slater's Argument	Held
Whether market value was reasonably ascertainable so replacement value could not be used	Market value may be inferred from original/replacement cost plus context; replacement value was appropriate because resale items weren’t equivalent	Market value was reasonably ascertainable and the State had no basis to rely on replacement value	Reversed: trial court erred; insufficient showing that market value was not reasonably ascertainable, so relying on replacement value was improper
Sufficiency of evidence to prove value ≥ $10,000	Spreadsheet replacement totals met the $10,000 threshold	Replacement-value evidence insufficient and improperly used	Reversed as to aggravated first-degree theft; error not harmless because market values might total less than $10,000
Whether State had to prove a culpable mental state as to value (plain-error)	Value need not be proven with a culpable mental state under controlling precedent	The State must prove at least criminal negligence as to value	Denied plain-error relief to Slater; Court adhered to precedent rejecting that requirement
Appropriate remedial disposition on reversal	N/A	N/A	Directed entry of conviction for the lesser-included offense (theft in the third degree) and remanded for resentencing because record cannot establish first- or second-degree value thresholds without speculation

State v. Mays, 294 Or App 229 (2018) (framework for when replacement value may be used when market value is not reasonably ascertainable)
State v. G. L. D., 253 Or App 416 (2012) (replacement or original cost may be considered in evaluating market value in context)
State v. Callaghan, 33 Or App 49 (1978) (market value defined as price a willing buyer will pay a willing seller at time/place of crime)
State v. Morales, 299 Or App 392 (2019) (reaffirming that State need not prove a culpable mental state as to value)
State v. Jones, 223 Or App 611 (2008) (same; precedential baseline on mental-state element for value)
State v. Stowell, 304 Or App 1 (2020) (recent reaffirmation of Jones on culpable mental-state issue)
State v. Waterhouse, 359 Or 351 (2016) (discussing theft-degree distinctions based on value and that property must have at least some value)
State v. Pittman, 276 Or App 491 (2016) (authority to direct entry of lesser-included conviction on appeal)
Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. State of Oregon, 331 Or 634 (2001) (standards for affirming on alternative grounds not raised below)
State v. Lachat, 298 Or App 579 (2019) (harmless-error standard for affirming despite trial error)