Defendant was convicted by a jury of stealing property of a value of at least $150, § 570.030, RSMo 1986. The court found defendant to be a prior offender, § 558.016, RSMo 1986, and sentenced him to 5 years imprisonment.
Because defendant challenges the sufficiency of the State’s evidence, we set forth and consider as true thе evidence most favorable to the State and all favorable inferеnces to be drawn therefrom, disregarding evidence to the contrary. State v. Smith,
The State’s evidence revealed the following: On May 5, 1989, defendant and a woman entered Oaktree clothing store in the St. Louis Galleria shopping mall. The storе manager observed the woman put merchandise into a bag while defendаnt questioned him about the price of certain items. Without attempting to pаy, defendant and the woman left the store with the merchandise. After asking another employee to alert security, the manager followed them. They entеred The Athlete’s Foot store where the woman handed defendant the bag. He placed the bag on the floor, kicked it under a clothes rack, and thеy left the store. A security guard stopped the two, and defendant said, “What bag, wе don’t know what you are talking about” in response to the manager’s questions about the stolen clothing. After defendant and the woman were detained, seсurity retrieved the bag, which contained 10 items from Oaktree.
At trial, the manager of Oaktree stated the retail prices of the stolen items, which totaled $260. Eаch item also had a tag attached showing its retail price. The State аttempted to show the wholesale costs of the items, but the defendant objected on the basis of improper foundation and the objection was sustаined. Defendant offered no evidence as to the value of proрerty.
Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence offerеd by the State to prove that the stolen items had a value of $150 or more аs required by § 570.030.3(1), RSMo 1986, on the ground that the State’s evidence of the retail value is insufficient in and of itself. Value is defined for purposes of the relevant statute аs “the market value of the property at the time and place of thе crime.” § 570.020(1), RSMo 1986.
In State v. Carter,
We do not deny that retail price is simply an expectancy, an amount the owner hopes to receive for the item in the future. Nor do we deny that the profit factor included in the prices can be arbitrarily inflated or deflated by the merchant, and therefore, not realistically reрresent a true value to the victim. From this alone, however, we cannot conclude that evidence of retail price is not some evidencе of market value ...”544 S.W.2d at 338 ; See also State v. Gordon,543 S.W.2d 553 , 556 (Mo.App.1976).
Thus, not only is the retail price of the merchandise relevant and admissible, it can be the sole evidence that the stolen proрerty had a value of $150 or more as required for a conviction of felоny stealing. Of course, proof of market value by retail price is sufficient only when, as here, we are dealing with items which are sold over the counter on a more or less daily basis. The evidence clearly demonstrated that the stolen items were offered for sale in a store located within a largе shopping mall, and displayed tags indicating the sale price at the time оf theft. Nothing in the evidence indicated that the retail price was not the mаrket value.
Defendant also contends that the trial court should have submitted аn instruction on the lesser included offense of misdemeanor stealing. Since there was no evidence indicating that the stolen property had a market value less than $150, the court properly refused the instruction.
Judgment affirmed.