Court Opinion

ID: 9683403
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:28:05.768769+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:47.620034
License: Public Domain

George Howard, Jr., Justice, dissenting. The majority affirms appellant’s conviction on the grand larceny charge on the theory that appellant’s counsel did not register an explicit objection to hearsay testimony presented in order to establish the value of a watch that was taken from the victim’s home. There is no direct testimony as to the actual value of the watch other than testimony about a tag attached to the watch bearing a figure which, of course, exceeds the sum of $35.00. Testimony was also given indicating that the watch was given to the victim as a gift from a relative. It is clear from this record that defense counsel did register an objection of a general nature when the State offered the watch into evidence. At the close of the State’s case, defense counsel once again registered an objection and did, to a degree, specify that he was concerned about the State’s failure to establish value. The majority contends that the objection was untimely at this point. Also, appellant’s attorney moved for a directed verdict at the close of the State’s case, in effect, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. Thus, in my judgment, the issue of value could be considered at this point. Moreover, it must be remembered that appellant received a sentence of thirty-one and one-half years on the burglary charge and thirty-one and one-half years on the grand larceny charge. These sentences are to run consecutively. It seems to me that in view of the long sentences received by the appellant in this case compassion alone dictates a finding by this Court, in the interest of justice, that the trial court committed reversible error in sustaining a term of thirty-one and one-half years that is based purely upon hearsay. Therefore, I would reverse the grand larceny conviction.