Source: http://www.husseinandwebber.com/crimes/theft-fraud/grand-theft/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 20:07:44+00:00

Document:
Under Florida law, Grand Theft is any intentional and unlawful taking of property valued at $300.00 or more. Grand theft is a felony offense, with penalties that may include prison, probation, fines, restitution, and a permanent criminal record.
Under Section 812.014, Florida Statutes, Grand Theft is defined as the unlawful taking or using of property, valued at $300.00 or more, with the intent to deprive the owner of his or her rights to the property.
In Florida, the penalties applicable to a Grand Theft charge will depend on the value and type of property at issue.
Grant Theft is a “specific intent” crime, which means that the defendant must not only take property belonging to another person, but must also have done so with the aim of stealing (i.e. depriving the victim of his or her rights to property). State v. C.G., 572 So. 2d 1380, 1381 (Fla. 1991).
To sustain a conviction, there must be some substantial competent evidence from which the jury may reasonably infer the felonious intent. Mosher v. State, 750 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).
Proof of the element of value is essential to sustain a conviction for Grand Theft, and must be established by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. Ramos v. State, 864 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
“[i]f the value of property cannot be ascertained, the trier of fact may find the value to be not less than a certain amount; if no such minimum value can be ascertained, the value is an amount less than $100.
It is settled law in Florida that testimony as to the original purchase price of stolen property is insufficient by itself to prove value at the time of a theft. Negron v. State, 306 So. 2d 104 (Fla.1974); Soderman v. State, 844 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); DH v. State, 864 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).
Although original purchase price may be used as a factor in establishing value at the time of the taking, the item’s use, general condition, quality when purchased, and percentage of appreciation or depreciation since purchase must also be established. Ramos, 864 So. 2d at 1252 (citing Gilbert v. State, 817 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)).
Where market value at the time of the theft cannot be determined, it may also be established with evidence of the replacement cost of a stolen item, although some evidence must be adduced that the replacement item was similar in value to the item stolen at the time of the taking. Ramos, 864 So. 2d at 1252.
Retail value and speculative estimates are also insufficient to establish the value of stolen property in a Grand Theft prosecution. Evans v. State, 452 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); In the Interest of F.R., 539 So. 2d 588, 590 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Weatherspoon v. State, 419 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).
Evidence must furthermore derive from a witness who is competent to testify as to value. Sellers v. State, 838 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).
If you have been charged with Grand Theft, contact the attorneys at Hussein & Webber, PL for a free consultation. We represent clients in Jacksonville, Orlando, and the surrounding counties of northeast and central Florida.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.