From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

M.M.S. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jul 28, 2004
877 So. 2d 941 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

Summary

holding that an estimate of a stolen ring's value from the store where it was purchased was insufficient to establish value for restitution purposes

Summary of this case from Allen v. State

Opinion

Case No. 2D03-3347.

Opinion filed July 28, 2004.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County, Charles Lee Brown, Judge.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Tosha Cohen, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Cerese Crawford Taylor, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.


M.M.S. appeals an order requiring him to pay restitution in the amount of $2500. The State concedes, and we agree, that the trial court improperly relied on hearsay evidence in determining the value of a stolen ring, and therefore, a new restitution hearing is necessary.

At the restitution hearing, the victim testified that the stolen ring had been a gift from her mother-in-law. The victim obtained an estimate of the ring's value from the store in Saint Thomas where the ring was purchased. There was no other evidence of the ring's value. The State properly concedes that this hearsay testimony was insufficient to establish value for restitution purposes. See Aboyoun v. State, 842 So.2d 238 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Therefore, a new restitution hearing is necessary to determine the fair market value of the ring. See id. at 240 (holding that the value of stolen bracelets was established by a preponderance of the evidence where the victim testified that, although he did not know the purchase price of the bracelets, he was able to testify concerning the bracelets' value based on his experience shopping for and purchasing gold jewelry).

The victim's mother-in-law is deceased.

Accordingly, we affirm M.M.S.'s adjudication and disposition but reverse the restitution order and remand for a new restitution hearing.

SALCINES and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED.


Summaries of

M.M.S. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jul 28, 2004
877 So. 2d 941 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

holding that an estimate of a stolen ring's value from the store where it was purchased was insufficient to establish value for restitution purposes

Summary of this case from Allen v. State

finding "trial court improperly relied on hearsay evidence in determining the value of a stolen ring"

Summary of this case from Fitzgerald v. State
Case details for

M.M.S. v. State

Case Details

Full title:M.M.S., Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Jul 28, 2004

Citations

877 So. 2d 941 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

Citing Cases

Moore v. State

The victim's testimony regarding what the jewelry store's employee told her regarding the estimated value of…

Fitzgerald v. State

The hearsay evidence as to catalog prices was the only proof of value presented by the state. See…