Court Opinion

ID: 9541239
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:23:49.112146+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:02.704555
License: Public Domain

Bogdanski, J.
(dissenting). The defendant claims that the court erred in failing to define the term “value” pursuant to § 53a-121 of the General Statutes when charging the jury as to the crime of larceny in the first degree.
While the court did instruct the jury that in order to convict the defendant of first degree larceny they had to find that the value of the property was in excess of $2000, it failed to instruct them as to what standard of proof § 53a-121 mandates and what the consequences are of the finding that that mandate has not been met. The effect of this was to remove from the jury’s consideration an essential element of the crime of first degree larceny.
Section 53a-121 provides: “the value of property shall be ascertained as follows: (1) . . . , value means the market value of the property ... at the *66time and place of the crime or, if such cannot be satisfactorily ascertained, the cost of replacement of the property within a reasonable time after the crime .... When the value of property . . . cannot be satisfactorily ascertained pursuant to the standards set forth in this section, its value shall be deemed to be an amount less than fifty dollars.” (Emphasis added.)
The absence of any instructions as to value as set forth in the statute leads to the conclusion that the jury engaged in pure speculation.
I would find error and order a new trial.