Zanterrial Dejohn Carter v. State of Florida
238 So. 3d 362
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Zanterrial Dejohn Carter was convicted of attempted first-degree premeditated or felony murder, burglary, and grand theft; appeal challenges only the grand theft conviction.
- Victim testified multiple electronics were stolen: 42" and 32" TVs, laptop (bought <3 months earlier for about $640; victim estimated $300–$400), tablet (estimated $250–$300 new), desktop, Xbox 360, surround sound, and pictures.
- Many items were over a decade old (42" TV, desktop, Xbox); the State presented no evidence about the condition, quality, or depreciation of the items at the time of theft.
- The victim offered only ballpark total-value estimates ("three, $4000 easy") and individual rough estimates; no documentary proof or condition testimony was introduced.
- Grand theft under the information required proof that stolen property was valued at $300 or more; value is market value at time/place or replacement cost, and may be proven by original price plus depreciation evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proved value element (≥ $300) for grand theft | State argued victim's estimates and descriptions of items sufficed to show value over $300 | Carter argued estimates were uninformed guesses and no proof of condition/depreciation undermined value element | Court held evidence insufficient to prove value beyond a reasonable doubt; grand theft reversed and reduced to petit theft |
Key Cases Cited
- Chambers v. State, 200 So. 3d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (standard of review for judgment of acquittal)
- Criner v. State, 943 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (judgment of acquittal granted only when evidence cannot reasonably support conviction)
- S.M.M. v. State, 569 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (value is essential element of grand theft)
- Fritts v. State, 58 So. 3d 430 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (value may be proved by original price plus depreciation, manner of use, condition, quality)
- Sellers v. State, 838 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (uninformed estimates and lack of condition evidence insufficient to prove value)
- D.H. v. State, 864 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (quantity/type of items alone does not establish value)