The defendant, Conrad Gamble, and his wife operate a pawnshop in Stockbridge, Georgia. He was indicted on two counts of theft by receiving stolen property. He was acquitted of Count 1 and convicted of Count 2. He brings this apрeal. Held:
1. It is argued that the verdict of guilty of Count 2 is inconsistent with the not guilty verdict as to Count 1 because both verdicts rested principally upon the testimony of the same witness. We do not agree. This court faced a similar issue in
Frazier v. State, 152
Ga. App. 743 (
*557 2. Enumerated errors 5, 6, 7, and 9 deаl with the value of the items stolen from Mr. Morrow by Mr. Morrison and sold to the defendant. The state relied upon Morrow to establish value of the items alleged in the indictment. Although he gave his personal opinion as to the value of eаch item, it was vague and inconclusive. No basis for any opinion was given — only the purchase or replacement price.
“The testimony of the owner of property as to his opinion of the value of the property without giving his reasons therefor and an opinion as to value based solely on cost price is inadmissible in evidence as it has no probative value; and [even] if admitted without objection [as it was here] it cannot support а verdict.”
Williams v. State,
3. It is alleged that the trial court erred in allowing a photograph of the stolen tires and wheels to be placed in evidence as it was secondary evidence and the State hаd voluntarily returned the original evidence to its owner and had access to those items and should have been required to produce them “since the value and condition of the tires were at issue.”
Mr. Morrow’s car had been stolen. The tires and wheels had been removed and sold. Morrow recovered his car and the police reсovered the tires and wheels. Since Morrow required the tires and wheels to operate his car they were returned to him after being photographed. Mr. Morrow testified as to the theft of the tires and wheels and finding them in the possеssion of the defendant. He identified the photograph as depicting the tires and wheels which had been stolen frоm him and found in defendant’s pawnshop. Inasmuch as the principal reason for the defendant’s objection was thаt the original items were needed for the jury to ascertain their value and it is obvious that they had “some value” along with the other items — sufficient to sustain a misdemeanor — the defendant could not have been harmed. See
Adams v. State,
4. Any error in thе refusal of the trial court to reduce the felony charge to a misdemeanor for lack of sufficient prоof to establish the *558 minimum felony amount is mooted by our holding in Division 2.
5. The eighth enumerated error contends the “trial court erred in not conducting an in camera inspection of the used goods in response to defendant’s” Brady motion. The defendant filed a Brady motion with the state for 17 specific classes of evidence. Apparently the statе did not respond to the motion and neither was a hearing held by the trial court. After conclusion of the presentation of evidence and argument by both sides, defense counsel brought up the failure of the state to respond and the fact that “[t]he Court never had an opportunity to rule upon it only at this stage of the trial... I am just re-asserting it for the purpose of the record.” The court replied: “... had you asked for permission to examine these matters prior to trial, certainly you would have had the right to do that. . . There’s nothing for me to decide on about that [now, аfter the trial is over].” Thus, the defendant never requested the trial court to conduct an in camera inspection.
The Supreme Court, in
Tribble v. State,
Further, “a defendant bears the burden of showing prejudice to his case resulting from the prosecution’s refusal to turn over documents or evidence.”
Coachman v. State,
6. We have examined the defendant’s remaining enumerations and found them to be meritless.
Judgment of conviction affirmed; remanded for resentencing.