Case Name: L.A., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2018-08-22
Citations: 252 So. 3d 407
Docket Number: No. 3D17-436
Parties: L.A., a juvenile, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before LAGOA, LOGUE and LUCK, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 252
Pages: 407–408

Head Matter:
L.A., a juvenile, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 3D17-436
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Opinion filed August 22, 2018
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Billie Jan Goldstein, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Joanne Diez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before LAGOA, LOGUE and LUCK, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See F.T. v. State, 146 So.3d 1270, 1272-73 & n.4 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) ("If a person steals a shirt from a store and the price stated on the tag affixed to the shirt is $100, the content of that price tag is not hearsay because it is not coming in to prove the truth of the matter asserted but only to establish what the tag "says." Its independent relevance is only as a result of the statutory language of the definition of "value," which is simply the price affixed to the retail item at the time it was stolen.... [W]e do not agree that a business records foundation must be laid before a witness is permitted to testify to her contemporaneous observation of the contents of the price tag affixed to the stolen item of retail merchandise.").