Opinion ID: 3173191
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Officer Owens’s testimony

Text: ¶17. Moore argues that the trial court erred in allowing Officer Owens to testify regarding the value of the stolen wallets, over Moore’s objection that Officer Owens lacked personal knowledge. During Officer Owens’s testimony on direct examination, the following exchange occurred: BY MR. BAKER: Q. Officer Owens, do you know how many wallets were found on Mr. Moore’s person in total?
Q. Do you know the stated price for those items? MR. McNAIR: Objection, Your Honor, unless he has personal knowledge as to the total number of wallets found. MR. BAKER: I’ll rephrase the question. THE COURT: He can testify to what he knows and what he observed. BY MR. BAKER: Q. Based upon your own personal knowledge, do you know the value of the 14 wallets that were found on Mr. Moore’s person? MR. McNAIR: Objection. THE COURT: Basis of the objection. 9 MR. McNAIR: He is talking about 14 wallets. Officer Owens is talking about five wallets he found, he has personal knowledge of. He has no knowledge about the nine wallets or any wallets that were found at Dillard’s. He is asking him to give a price for all 14. THE COURT: He asked him if he knew. He can testify to what he knows. That will be overruled to that extent. If he knows, he may answer, Mr. Baker. If not, he will have to say he doesn’t know. BY MR. BAKER: Q. Do you know the value? A. Of the total of 14 wallets or 5? Q. The total of the 14 wallets? A. Over $1,700, sir. On cross-examination, Officer Owens testified that he was given the information about the price of the wallets. He testified he was not present when the prices were recorded and he did not recall seeing the tags on the other nine wallets not recovered by him. He admitted that he did not know, based on his personal knowledge, the total value of the fourteen wallets. However, on redirect, Officer Owens provided the following testimony: BY MR. BAKER: Q. Officer Owens, over the course of your career, have you had the opportunity to investigate numerous theft cases? A. Yes, sir. Q. And as part of your process or investigation in determining the value of items, who typically supplies the value of the items that were stolen? A. The victim. Q. Okay. And the victim in this case was who? A. Dillard’s. 10 Q. And can you tell the jury whether or not the victim in this case, Dillard’s, supplied you with a value for items that were stolen? A. Yes. Q. And what was that value? A. In excess of $1,700. Q. That was for how many wallets? A. Fourteen. ¶18. This Court has held that “individuals may testify as to the value of their own property.” Cmty. Bank, Ellisville, Miss. v. Courtney, 884 So. 2d 767, 774-75 (Miss. 2004) (quoting Regency Nissan, Inc. v. Jenkins, 678 So. 2d 95, 101 (Miss. 1995)). See also Robichaux v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 81 So. 3d 1030, 1038 (Miss. 2011). The owner’s estimate does not have to “be rationally based,” and no predicate is required other than ownership. Courtney, 884 So. 2d at 774-75 (quoting Regency Nissan, 678 So. 2d at 101). Securities Supervisor Correa, as Dillard’s representative, testified that the value of the fourteen wallets was $1,726, as reflected by the price tags still on the wallets. ¶19. “This Court consistently has held that ‘[t]he relevancy and admissibility of evidence are largely within the discretion of the trial court and reversal may be had only where that discretion has been abused.’” Fulks v. State, 110 So. 3d 764, 769 (Miss. 2013) (quoting Johnston v. State, 567 So. 2d 237, 238 (Miss.1990)). Defense counsel registered a series of objections, and the trial court properly ruled that the officer was restricted to personal knowledge and observation. Officer Owens’s answer was nonresponsive to the question of whether he had personal knowledge of the value of the wallets. Instead of responding either 11 yes or no, which would have allowed the trial court to exclude the evidence, Officer Owens blurted out the value of the wallets. But for Andre Correa previously testifying, without objection, that the total value of the fourteen wallets recovered was $1,726, Owens’s hearsay statement could have resulted in reversible error. However, since the value had been established fully by the owner, we deem the repetitious valuation to be harmless.