Title: State v. Jones
Citation: 104 Ariz. 14, 448 P.2d 70
Docket Number: 1907
State: Arizona
Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court
Date: December 13, 1968

104 Ariz. 14 (1968) 448 P.2d 70 STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Joe JONES, Appellant. No. 1907. Supreme Court of Arizona. In Banc. December 13, 1968. *15 Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., Darrell F. Smith, Then Atty. Gen., by Carl Waag, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee. W. Francis Wilson, Phoenix, for appellant. McFARLAND, Chief Justice: Joe Jones, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was tried and found guilty of the crime of Grand Theft, a felony, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-661 and § 13-663, as amended, and sentenced to a term of not less than four years nor more than five years in the Arizona State Penitentiary. From the conviction and judgment he appeals. The evidence shows that Jones was charged with stealing an evaporative cooler valued in excess of one hundred dollars. The only issue involved in this appeal is that of the value of the cooler. Defendant contended that it did not have a value of a hundred dollars, and therefore he could not have been convicted of more than a misdemeanor. The evidence in the case was conflicting. The defendant's evidence was to the effect that the cooler did not have a value of a hundred dollars, and the State's evidence was that it had a value of over a hundred dollars. Underhill on Criminal Evidence, Vol. 2, states: The question of the value of property is one for the determination of the jury. Murphy v. State, 50 Ariz. 481, 73 P.2d 110. The question then is whether there was substantial evidence before the jury to support the verdict. The evidence supporting the verdict shows that the cooler was new when it was purchased and installed; and that the purchase price was $181.50. Defendant's employer, a dealer in coolers, testified: Evidence in the case showed that the original price paid for the cooler was $181.50. The cooler had been placed in the house, but never operated, as the house had not yet been occupied. The cooler was stolen from the house and was evidently in substantially the same condition as when taken from the store. In the case of State v. Sorrell, 95 Ariz. 220, 388 P.2d 429, in which the evidence was introduced in regard to retail and wholesale values of property, we held: There was sufficient evidence from which the jury could find the market value of the stolen property at the time of the taking to have a value of one hundred dollars, or more. Judgment affirmed. UDALL, V.C.J., and STRUCKMEYER, BERNSTEIN, and LOCKWOOD, JJ., concur.