COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Fitzpatrick 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

MARLO JERMAINE OWEN 

v. Record No. 1495-95-2 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

 JUDGE JOHANNA L. FITZPATRICK 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA MAY 28, 1996 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HALIFAX COUNTY 

Charles L. McCormick, III, Judge 

 Nora J. Miller, Assistant Public Defender 

(Office of the Public Defender, on brief), 

for appellant. 

 Steven A. Witmer, Assistant Attorney General 

(James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 Marlo Jermaine Owen (appellant) was convicted in a bench 

trial of grand larceny. On appeal, he argues that the trial 

court erred in finding the evidence sufficient to prove that the 

value of the stolen items was more than $200. We agree and 

reverse the conviction. 

 On May 19, 1994, appellant and an accomplice broke into the 

Halifax County Wastewater Treatment Plant. They took a power saw 

and Craftsman tools that were marked as the property of the Town 

of Halifax. Later that evening, appellant asked his uncle, 

Howard Owen (Owen), if he wanted to buy some tools. Owen said he 

had only forty dollars, and appellant sold the tools to Owen for 

that amount. 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
 2 

 The next day, Jane Watts (Watts), the chief operator of the 

treatment plant, discovered that the tools were missing. As 

chief operator of the plant, Watts was responsible for purchasing 

any necessary tools. She prepared a list of the missing tools 

and, using a Sears catalog, estimated the replacement cost of the 

tools to be $540. The police found the missing tools at Owen's 

home. 

 At trial, Watts testified that the tools were purchased in 

1986 or 1987; that she did not purchase the tools or know the 

purchase price; that they were Craftsman tools from Sears with a 

lifetime guaranty; that they were in "excellent working order"; 

and that they were worth more than $200. At the conclusion of 

the Commonwealth's evidence, appellant moved to strike, arguing 

that the Commonwealth failed to show that the current value of 

the tools was more than $200. The trial judge denied appellant's 

motion and stated as follows: 

 I think that the Commonwealth has made 

out a prima facie case as to the value of the 

goods taken. Even if you depreciate those 

goods by more than fifty percent, you still 

would be two hundred dollars or more. And as 

the Commonwealth has pointed out, these types 

of goods are not easily depreciated. They 

have lifetime guarantees by the Craftsman 

people and they probably do not lose their 

value very fast. 

 This case is controlled by Walls v. Commonwealth, 248 Va. 

480, 450 S.E.2d 363 (1994). In Walls, the Supreme Court of 

Virginia recognized that "'[p]roof that an article has some value 

is sufficient to warrant a conviction of petit larceny, but where 
 3 

the value of the thing stolen determines the grade of the 

offense, the value must be alleged and the Commonwealth must 

prove the value to be the statutory amount.'" 248 Va. at 481, 

450 S.E.2d at 364 (quoting Wright v. Commonwealth, 196 Va. 132, 

139, 82 S.E.2d 603, 607 (1954)). "While the original purchase 

price of an item may be admitted as evidence of its current 

value, there must also be 'due allowance for elements of 

depreciation.'" Dunn v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 704, 705, 284 

S.E.2d 792, 792 (1981) (quoting Gertler v. Bowling, 202 Va. 213, 

215, 116 S.E.2d 268, 270 (1960)). 

 In Walls, the Supreme Court held that "the general rule is 

that opinion testimony of a nonexpert, who is not the owner of 

the personal property in question, is admissible upon the subject 

of property value, provided the witness possesses sufficient 

knowledge of the value of the property or has had ample 

opportunity for forming a correct opinion as to value." 248 Va. 

at 483, 450 S.E.2d at 365 (emphasis added). The nonexpert 

witness in Walls "described the items, stated their age, and said 

they were in 'good working order.' But he did not testify about 

the original cost or 'the effect of age and wear and tear' on the 

value of the stolen equipment." Id. (quoting Dunn, 222 Va. at 

705, 284 S.E.2d at 792). The Supreme Court determined that the 

witness "demonstrated insufficient knowledge of the value of the 

stolen items" and reversed the conviction. Walls, 248 Va. at 

483, 450 S.E.2d at 365. 
 4 

 Like the witness in Walls, Watts, who was not the owner of 

the tools, did not testify about the original purchase price of 

the tools or the effect of age and wear and tear on the value of 

the tools. She testified only that the tools were purchased in 

1986 or 1987 by someone other than herself; that she did not know 

the purchase price; that the tools were Craftsman tools from 

Sears with a lifetime guaranty; and that they were in excellent 

working order. Although she estimated the replacement cost of 

the tools to be $540 and thus more than $200, this estimate did 

not adequately establish the current value of the stolen tools, 

reflecting the effects of wear and tear. We hold that the trial 

court erred in finding the evidence sufficient to prove that the 

value of the tools was more than $200. 

 Accordingly, the decision of the Supreme Court in Walls

dictates reversal. The case is remanded to the circuit court for 

sentencing in accordance with a verdict of petit larceny. 

 Reversed and remanded.