258 So. 2d 313 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 1972
The only question in this appeal is whether the evidence of the value of the victim’s purse and the items contained therein sustains Singleton’s conviction of grand larceny. At the most the record will support a finding that there was $87.00 in cash in the purse at the time, and the grand larceny conviction can only be sustained upon evidence that the purse and its contents had a market value of at least $13.00. However, the only testimony is as to the original cost of the articles, and defense counsel was not allowed to cross-examine the victim regarding current value.
We agree completely with the State’s contention that the victim is a competent witness to value,
Cost bears on value but is not its equivalent. Accordingly the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to enter judgment, pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 924.34 (1969), F.S.A.
In view of the fact that the appellant’s brief was filed tardily and cited no authorities, as F.A.R. 3.7(f), 32 F.S.A. requires, thus imposing upon this court the obligation of annotating this opinion and, as a consequence, the maximum sentence for petit larceny will shortly have expired, the time within which the State may file petition for rehearing is reduced to five days.
Reversed and remanded.
. Suarez v. State, Fla.App.2d 1962, 136 So.2d 367, and eases therein cited; see also Miller v. State, Fla.App.2d 1968, 212 So.2d 388.
. Fla.App.3d 1971, 257 So.2d 276.
. This statute was amended by Laws of Florida 1970, c. 70-339, § 161, in a respect not here material.
. Wright v. State, Fla.App.1st 1971, 251 So.2d 890.
. Catlett v. Chestnut, 1933, 107 Fla. 498, 146 So. 241.