DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

SHAROD M. HARRIS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-913

[January 8, 2020]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Timothy L. Bailey, Judge; L.T. Case No. 17-1369CF10A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Gary Lee Caldwell, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard Valuntas, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

WARNER, J.

Appellant challenges his conviction and sentence for grand theft, 

claiming that the court erred in denying his motion for judgment of 

acquittal. Because the State failed to produce any legally sufficient 

evidence of the value of items, we reverse.

The State charged appellant with burglary and grand theft. At his trial, 

the State presented evidence that two iPads, an iPhone, an Alexa speaker, 

knick-knacks, a signed baseball, a camera, and jewelry had been taken 

from the home of a husband and wife and were found in the possession of 

the appellant. One of the pieces of jewelry was the wife’s engagement ring. 

The husband testified to the purchase price of most of the stolen 

electronics. He did not testify as to their present condition or provide any 

information regarding their fair market value. The wife testified and 

described some of the jewelry, including: pearl earrings with a diamond 

chip, two gold bracelets, a gold anklet, two necklaces (one with a brown 

gemstone and the other with a circle of diamonds), a pair of diamond 

earrings, and a pearl ring with a circle of diamonds. Pictures of some of 

the jewelry were admitted into evidence. When asked if she could give a 
2

value to some of the items, she said the ones that had been passed down 

she would not know, but the rest of them, like the ones her husband 

bought, she could valuate. Over defense objection for lack of proper 

foundation, the wife estimated that her engagement ring had a value of 

“probably $3000.” The earrings had been purchased by her mother and 

those cost $900. She clarified that she was with her mother when the 

earrings were purchased. A necklace with a brown pendant was “worth 

probably about a hundred.”

Upon the close of the State’s case and again at the close of all the 

evidence, appellant moved for judgment of acquittal on the grand theft 

charge, because there was insufficient proof of the value of the goods 

taken. The court denied the motion. The jury acquitted appellant of the 

burglary charge but convicted him of grand theft. He was sentenced to 

five years in prison. He now appeals the grand theft conviction.

Appellant challenges the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal. 

He claims that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove that the fair 

market value of the stolen items was more than $300. Because the 

testimony of the victims was insufficient to prove the value of the property, 

and the State offered no other evidence, we agree with appellant.

Section 812.014(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2017) provides that “if the 

property stolen is: 1. Valued at $300 or more, but less than $5000” it is 

grand theft of the third degree. The term “value” has been defined in the 

theft statute. The relevant part of section 812.012(10), Florida Statutes

(2017) provides:

(10) “Value” means value determined according to any of the 

following:

(a)1. Value means the market value of the property at the 

time and place of the offense or, if such cannot be 

satisfactorily ascertained, the cost of replacement of the 

property within a reasonable time after the offense.

In Bruce v. State, 276 So. 3d 1, 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019), we noted that 

“‘[v]alue’ is an essential element of grand theft that must be proven by the 

State beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt.”

The proof of value requires a two-prong test. “First, the court must 

ascertain whether the person testifying is competent to testify to the value 

of property.” Lucky v. State, 25 So. 3d 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (quoting 

Mansfield v. State, 954 So. 2d 74, 76-77 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)). Generally, 
3

an owner is presumed competent to testify as to the value of his or her 

property. However, “an owner's estimate of the value of stolen property 

must be supported by facts that show enough familiarity with the property 

to lend credence to the opinion.” Sanchez v. State, 101 So. 3d 1283, 1287

(Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (citations omitted). “[W]here ‘the value of the property 

is estimated and no other proof is presented,’ the owner’s evidence is 

insufficient to prove fair market value.” Id. (citations omitted).

Second, if the person is competent, the court must ascertain whether 

the evidence adduced at trial is sufficient to prove its fair market value 

beyond a reasonable doubt. Lucky, 25 So. 3d at 692. “Regarding the 

second prong, ‘[a]bsent direct testimony of the market value of the 

property, proof may be established through the following factors: original 

market cost, manner in which the item has been used, its general 

condition and quality, and the percentage of depreciation since its 

purchase or construction.’” Bagnara v. State, 189 So. 3d 167, 171 (Fla. 

4th DCA 2016) (quoting Lucky v. State, 25 So. 3d 691, 692 (Fla. 4th DCA 

2010)). “[E]vidence of the purchase price and age of the stolen item, 

without more, is insufficient.” Bruce, 276 So. 3d at 3 (quoting Tindal v. 

State, 145 So. 3d 915, 920 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)).

In Sanchez, when asked to assign a value to stolen jewelry, the victim 

testified, “I don't know, a couple of hundred dollars maybe.” 101 So. 3d 

at 1285. She did not know the value of a stolen camera and thought two 

TV remotes were probably worth $20 each. Id. We held that such 

testimony was legally insufficient to prove the fair market value of stolen 

goods, even though the witness was the owner of the property. An owner’s 

estimate of the value of his or her property “must be supported by facts 

that show enough familiarity with the property to lend credence to the 

opinion.” Id. at 1287 (citations omitted). In Sanchez there was none.

In Bruce, the items taken included a gold bracelet, costume jewelry, 

and other items. There was evidence of the purchase price of items, but 

not the purchase dates (except for the gold bracelet for which there was 

testimony that it was several years old). There were photographs of the 

items submitted, and the State argued that the “sheer volume of items” 

allowed a presumption that the total value was at least $300. We rejected 

the argument, that based on the number and nature of items, a minimum 

value could be found. 276 So. 3d at 3-4; see also Davis v. State, 48 So. 3d 

176, 180 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Additionally, we acknowledged that jurors 

could not rely on their “life experience” as to the value of items, citing 

Marrero v. State, 71 So. 3d 881 (Fla. 2011) (rejecting proposition that jury 

could rely on their life experience to establish value of goods for a violation 

of the grand theft statute). Bruce, 276 So. 3d at 4.
4

In Council v. State, 206 So. 3d 155, 157 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016), evidence 

of value was similarly held to be legally insufficient to support a grand 

theft charge. There, the owner of stolen diamond rings could not testify as 

to the original price of her rings, as they were a gift. She did not know 

about diamonds or their value. Thus, the court concluded that she was 

not competent to testify as to their value. Id. at 157. She did look on the 

internet for the value of a replacement ring, but the State did not lay a 

foundation to establish the computer price as a business record; thus it 

was inadmissible hearsay. Id.

In each of the foregoing cases, the appellate courts found that the 

evidence of value was legally insufficient to support a conviction of grand 

theft. Likewise, the market value of the items stolen in this case was not 

established. While the husband and wife testified to the cost of some of 

the items, the items were all purchased a while ago and there was no 

accounting for the general condition and quality or depreciation of the 

items. The only item for which the wife testified to its present value was 

her engagement ring, but the State elicited no evidence to show her 

personal familiarity with the value of the ring. There was even less 

evidence offered than was provided in Council. Further, her estimate that 

it was “probably” worth $3,000 is speculative. Because there was no 

legally sufficient evidence to prove that the stolen items were valued at 

$300 or more, the court erred in denying a judgment of acquittal as to 

grand theft, although appellant could be found guilty of petit theft. See § 

812.012(10)(b), Fla. Stat. (2017).

We thus reverse appellant’s conviction and sentence for grand theft,

and remand for the entry of a conviction for petit theft and resentencing. 

TAYLOR and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.