District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third DistrictFeb 17, 1978
354 So. 2d 437 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

Cases citing this document

How cited

  • W.D. v. State

    Affirmed. See J.L. v. State, 684 So.2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Butler v. State, 354 So.2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA…

  • R.P. v. State

    The victim's testimony that "it was near a hundred dollars, `cause I get two o nine a month, and I had spent…

8 Citing cases

No. 77-256.

January 24, 1978. Rehearing Denied February 17, 1978.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Gerald T. Wetherington, J.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Karen M. Gottlieb, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Margarita Esquiroz, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.


The sole question presented in this appeal is whether the evidence as to the value of the items taken from the victim's home was sufficient to sustain the conviction of defendant-appellant, Leon Butler, for grand larceny.

Proof of the element of value is essential for a conviction for grand larceny and with respect to this element, the proper measure is the fair market value of the stolen item(s) at the time of the theft. Negron v. State, 306 So.2d 104 (Fla. 1974). It is entirely permissible to use the owner or victim to establish the market value. See Kinsey v. State, 237 So.2d 808 (Fla.3d DCA 1970); Singleton v. State, 258 So.2d 313 (Fla.2d DCA 1972); Platt v. State, 291 So.2d 96 (Fla.2d DCA 1974); Vickers v. State, 303 So.2d 700 (Fla.1st DCA 1974); Beasley v. State, 305 So.2d 285 (Fla.3d DCA 1974). Upon being questioned by the prosecutor, the owner in the instant case testified that the fair market value of the items stolen was $700 or $800. Thus, the evidence of market value was sufficient to sustain defendant's conviction for grand larceny.