Defendant's home was searched and about 200 items seized. At trial twenty-six witnesses identified items of property as theirs, and they provided values for their property. About two-thirds of the items were claimed to belong to someone else. Defendant sought to ask the witnesses on cross-examination if they knew who took the property or if the defendant had stolen the property. The trial court refused to allow defendant's attorney to elicit answers to these questions.
Defendant contends the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the value of the stolen property.
Defendant specifically argues the trial court improperly allowed the State to use current market value to establish the value of property stolen in the past. Defendant was allowed to make a standing objection to valuation testimony. This is the error that was preserved for review. As a general rule, issues not presented in the trial court may not be raised for the first time on appeal. Reasonable standard includes but is not limited to market value within the community, actual value, or replacement value.