Summary
finding sufficient evidence for fourth-degree theft where property had only small, unknown market value
Summary of this case from Bigham v. StateOpinion
Court of Appeals No. A-10851 Trial Court No. 1WR-10-019 Cr No. 5868
08-08-2012
CHARLES L. GOLDSBURY, Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.
Appearances: John N. Page III, Assistant Public Defender, and Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Jean E. Seaton, Assistant District Attorney, Sitka, and Richard A. Svobodny, Acting Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
NOTICE
Memorandum decisions of this court do not create legal precedent. See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d) and Paragraph 7 of the Guidelines for Publication of Court of Appeals Decisions (Court of Appeals Order No. 3). Accordingly, this memorandum decision may not be cited as binding authority for any proposition of law.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appeal from the District Court, First Judicial District, Wrangell, Patricia A. Collins, Judge.
Appearances: John N. Page III, Assistant Public Defender, and Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Jean E. Seaton, Assistant District Attorney, Sitka, and Richard A. Svobodny, Acting Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
Before: Coats, Chief Judge, and Mannheimer and Bolger, Judges.
MANNHEIMER, Judge.
Charles L. Goldsbury was convicted of fourth-degree theft under AS 11.46.150(a) — i.e., theft of property having a value of less than $50 — for stealing twenty-one photographs from his girlfriend. Approximately half of these photographs depicted his girlfriend's nine-year-old daughter in various stages of undress. At the time he stole the photographs, Goldsbury was on probation for sexual abuse of a minor.
See Goldsbury v. State, unpublished, 2010 WL 1930150 (Alaska App. 2010).
In this appeal, Goldsbury challenges his conviction on two grounds.
Goldsbury first argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that he "stole" the photographs — in the sense of taking the photos from his girlfriend's house with the intent to appropriate them to himself, or with the intent to deprive his girlfriend of them. But the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the verdict, supports the conclusion that Goldsbury took the photographs from his girlfriend's house without her knowledge, and that he knew he did not have permission to take them. Moreover, based on the content of the photographs, and based on Goldsbury's history as a sex offender, it was reasonable to infer that Goldsbury intended to keep these photographs for his own purposes. We therefore conclude that the evidence was sufficient to establish that Goldsbury removed the photographs from his girlfriend's house with the intent to appropriate them to himself, and/or with the intent to deprive his girlfriend of them.
See AS 11.46.100 (the definition of "theft"); AS 11.46.990(2) (the definition of "appropriate"); and AS 11.46.990(8) (the definition of "deprive").
See, e.g., Lawrence v. State, 269 P.3d 672, 675 (Alaska App. 2012).
--------
Goldsbury next argues that even if he stole the photographs, he could not be convicted of theft because the photographs had no economic value.
It may be true, as Goldsbury argues, that the photographs had little or no market value — in the sense that they might not have fetched any money if offered for sale. But AS 11.46.980(a) declares that, for purposes of applying the theft statutes, there are two permissible methods for establishing the value of property. The government can rely either on "the market value of the property at the time and place of the crime" or, if the market value of the property "cannot reasonably be ascertained", the government can rely on "the cost of replac[ing] the property within a reasonable time after the crime".
The judge who presided over Goldsbury's bench trial found that the photographs had an ascertainable replacement value because one must pay money to have photographs printed — even family photographs that likely have no commercial value.
The photographs at issue in Goldsbury's case were printed at a Fred Meyer store and a Walmart store, and both of these stores required payment for this service. These payments were small; for instance, the envelope from Walmart shows that the store charged just a few dollars for printing the photographs. But the evidence shows that Goldsbury's girlfriend would have had to spend money to obtain replacement photographs — thus satisfying the requirement that the photographs had economic value for purposes of the theft statutes.
For these reasons, we reject both of Goldsbury's claims of error, and we AFFIRM the judgement of the district court.