NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

ADAM TELTSCHIK, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-1810

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed October 24, 2018. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk 

County; Wayne Durden, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, 

and Carol J. Y. Wilson, Assistant Public 

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Hurley, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee. 

KELLY, Judge.

Adam Teltschik appeals from his judgment and sentences for burglary of a 

structure and third-degree grand theft. He argues that the trial court erred in denying 
- 2 -

his motion for judgment of acquittal for the grand theft charge because the State failed 

to prove the value of the stolen items. We agree and reverse.

To establish third-degree grand theft the State must prove that the 

property stolen was "[v]alued at $300 or more, but less than $5,000." 

§ 812.014(2)(c)(1), Fla. Stat. (2016). "Value may be established by direct testimony of 

fair market value or through evidence of the original market cost of the property, the 

manner in which the items were used, the condition and quality of the items, and the 

percentage of depreciation of the items since their purchase." Pickett v. State, 839 So. 

2d 860, 861-62 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). The State can introduce evidence of the 

replacement cost of stolen property if the market value at the time and place of the 

offense cannot be satisfactorily ascertained. § 812.012(10)(a)(1). Because value is an 

element of the offense, it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Carter v. State, 

77 So. 3d 849, 851 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

Mr. Teltschik was charged with the theft of tools and maintenance 

equipment from the Four Seasons Golf Resort. Daniel White, the grounds 

superintendent, testified about the missing items. Mr. White's testimony did not satisfy 

the criteria for proving value beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. White gave the purchase 

price for some items but did not testify about depreciation. For other items he testified 

about their use and current condition but did not testify about the purchase price or 

depreciation. For one item he appeared to testify regarding replacement value but there 

was no testimony that fair market value could not otherwise be established. Thus, the 

State did not prove the value of the items stolen. See Ciani v. State, 177 So. 3d 656, 

658 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (holding that, although the owner of stolen property testified as 
- 3 -

to the original cost of the stolen tools, the manner in which they were used and their 

condition, evidence of market value was lacking because he gave no opinion as to 

depreciation in the tools' value since the time of purchase); Newland v. State, 117 So. 

3d 482, 483-84 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (holding that replacement cost evidence was 

insufficient where the owner of a stolen air conditioner did not provide any testimony of 

the cost to replace the stolen air conditioner unit with a similar unit about one to two 

years old). While common sense would allow a reasonable juror to conclude beyond a 

reasonable doubt that the several thousands of dollars in tools and equipment 

described by Mr. White was worth at least $300, the supreme court has been clear that 

common sense has no role in proving value in these circumstances.1 See Marrero v. 

State, 71 So. 3d 881, 889 (Fla. 2011) ("The application of a 'life experience' exception to 

any criminal statute, including the criminal theft statute, is inconsistent with the uniform 

system of justice that both the Florida and Federal Constitutions require and should not 

be left to the whim of individual jury members."). Accordingly, we reverse the conviction 

for grand theft and remand for entry of a judgment for second-degree petit theft and for 

resentencing for the lesser offense. 

1Mr. White testified about a one-month-old chainsaw in great condition that 

cost $170 new and had been used around five times, but he was not asked about 

depreciation. He testified about two six-month-old acetylene torches that cost $500 

new, but again, nothing about depreciation. He testified that a three-year-old 

compressor would cost over $200 to replace, but gave no testimony that fair market 

value could not be ascertained. He claimed that a working sod cutter of unspecified age 

cost $4000 "years ago," but gave no other information about the item. He testified that 

a one-year-old commercial weed eater in good condition would "probably" cost $450 to 

replace but gave no testimony that fair market value could not be ascertained. He 

stated that a one-and-a half-year-old pole saw that was "barely used" cost $1100 new, 

but gave no testimony regarding depreciation. He also testified that an industrial fan 

would "probably cost" over a "couple hundred" to replace and that assorted stolen tools 

probably cost $75 to $100. 
- 4 -

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

LaROSE, C.J., and MORRIS, J., Concur.