Stephans v. State
127 Nev. 712
Nev.2011Background
- Stephans and a companion stole six bottles of Ezra Fitch cologne from Abercrombie & Fitch in Las Vegas.
- Loss-prevention officer David Scott recovered the merchandise and testified on value.
- Value evidence relied on price tags; no price-tag copies or price-tag evidence admitted.
- Court allowed value testimony based on a lay description of price-tag amounts, over objections.
- Trial led to grand larceny conviction (value over $250), burglary, and conspiracy; variable on remand.
- Court reverses on grand larceny value issue and remands for a new trial on that charge; burglary and conspiracy affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of price-tag value testimony | Stephans: price-tag memory is hearsay and lacks foundation. | State: price-tag evidence should be admissible as value evidence with foundation. | Abuse of discretion; price-tag testimony inadmissible without foundation. |
| Effect of erroneous value evidence on grand larceny conviction | Error requires acquittal if value not proven beyond reasonable doubt. | Remedy is reversal and remand for new trial, not acquittal. | Remand for new trial on grand larceny; not acquittal. |
| Aggregation of value for multi-person larceny | Aggregate value across participants to meet threshold. | Aggregation is permitted by statute in continuing-course cases. | Aggregation valid; value could reach threshold to support grand larceny. |
| Best evidence and hearsay implications of price-tag testimony | Price tags are not admissible hearsay absent proper foundation. | Price-tag evidence can be exception-based value proof with authentication. | Best evidence rule and hearsay concerns require reversal on admissibility grounds. |
| Impact on related burglary and conspiracy verdicts | Errors in value proof could taint other convictions. | Burglary and conspiracy convictions independent of value issue. | Burglary and conspiracy affirmed; only grand larceny remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Calbert v. State, 99 Nev. 759, 670 P.2d 576 (Nev. 1983) (price tags competent evidence of value when properly admitted)
- United States v. LeShore, 543 F.3d 935 (7th Cir. 2008) (de novo review for legal interpretations of evidence rules)
- Robinson v. State, 516 S.E.2d 475 (Va. 1999) (price-tag testimony as hearsay when based solely on tag contents)
- State v. McPhie, 104 Idaho 652, 662 P.2d 233 (Idaho 1983) (price tags as hearsay when offered to prove value)
- State v. Rainwater, 876 P.2d 979 (Wash. App. 1994) (price tags as direct evidence of retail value; informational purchase context)
- Zellers v. United States, 682 A.2d 1118 (D.C. 1996) (sufficiency and value considerations in larceny contexts)