Weatherspoon v. State, 419 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
Weatherspoon v. State, 419 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
20 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Colletti v. State (fladistctapp, 2011-08-19)
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Colletti v. State (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
In any event, we note that a number of cases decided before Marrero have held that allowing a jury to determine a minimum value under section 812.012(10)(b) is permissible only in "those rare cases where the minimum value of an item of property is so obvious as to defy contradiction." Weatherspoon v. State, 419 So.2d 404, 405 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); see also K.W. v. State, 13 So.3d 90, 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) A.D. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
We next address the State’s argument that the finding of guilt may stand based on a finding that the minimum value of the items is self-evident. § 812.012(10)(b), Fla. Stat. (2008). “[S]uch a discretionary assessment of value is permissible only in ‘those rare cases where the minimum value of an item of property is so obvious as to defy contradiction.’ ” K.W., 13 So.3d at 92 (quoting Weatherspoon v. State, 419 So.2d 404, 405 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) AD v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
We next address the State's argument that the finding of guilt may stand based on a finding that the minimum value of the items is self-evident. § 812.012(10)(b), Fla. Stat. (2008). "[S]uch a discretionary assessment of value is permissible only in `those rare cases where the minimum value of an item of property is so obvious as to defy contradiction.'" K.W., 13 So.3d at 92 (quoting Weatherspoon v. State, 419 So.2d 404, 405 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) KW v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
However, such a discretionary assessment of value is permissible only in "those rare cases where the minimum value of an item of property is so obvious as to defy contradiction." Weatherspoon v. State, 419 So.2d 404, 405 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) K.W. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
However, such a discretionary assessment of value is permissible only in “those rare cases where the minimum value of an item of property is so obvious as to defy contradiction.” Weatherspoon v. State, 419 So.2d 404, 405 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).
cited Cited "see" TEJ v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Weatherspoon v. State, 419 So.2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), citing Negron v. State, 306 So.2d 104 (Fla.1974).
cited Cited "see" T.E.J. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Weatherspoon v. State, 419 So.2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), citing Negron v. State, 306 So.2d 104 (Fla.1974).
cited Cited "see" Collins v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Weatherspoon v. State, 419 So.2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).
David Lee WEATHERSPOON, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
81-2052.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Sep 15, 1982.
419 So. 2d 404
Scheb.
Cited by 19 opinions  |  Published

Jerry Hill, Public Defender, Bartow, and Deborah K. Brueckheimer, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and David T. Weisbrod, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

SCHEB, Judge.

Defendant seeks reversal of his convictions for burglary and grand theft. The only meritorious point he raises is that the state failed to prove that the value of the stolen television set was in excess of $100. Thus, defendant argues there was no basis for the conviction of grand theft. On that point we agree with defendant.

The jury found the defendant guilty of burglary and grand theft. The trial court sentenced him to fifteen years on the burglary count and five years for grand theft with the sentences to run consecutively.

At trial there was testimony from which the jury properly concluded that defendant stole the television set. The only evidence as to the value of the television set came from testimony of the owner. When asked how much the television was worth, the owner replied "About three —" before being interrupted by the judge. When asked a second time, the owner stated, "I was paying 90 for it. That's what I was paying for it." His further testimony established that the television was six months old when it was stolen.

Proof of the element of value is essential to a conviction for grand theft and must be established by the state beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. Negron v. State, 306 So.2d 104 (Fla. 1974). While inferences can be drawn from the testimony that the television set was worth in excess of $100, contrary inferences may also be drawn from the owner's statements. Moreover, the owner's testimony made no reference as to whether the value that he was attempting to discuss related to the television set when new or at the time it was stolen. The crime of grand theft, of course, requires proof of the market value when the offense occurred. § 812.012, Fla. Stat. (1979); Malloy v. State, 397 So.2d 1218 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

The state seeks to sustain the verdict of grand theft on the basis of this court's recent opinion in Jackson v. State, 413 So.2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). There, we held that the nature of certain stolen property[*405] — a 37-foot sailboat, less than a year old — was indicative of an uncontrovertable minimum value which exceeded $100. In Jackson we cautioned that while it was proper there for a jury to have returned a verdict of guilty for grand theft based on the property having a value of $100 or more, that was an instance where "reasonable persons could not doubt that the value of the sailboat as described to the jury was $100 or more." Jackson at 114. The rationale of Jackson is limited to those rare cases where the minimum value of an item of property is so obvious as to defy contradiction.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and sentence for burglary, vacate the judgment and sentence for grand theft, and direct the trial court to enter an adjudication of guilt of petit theft and to sentence defendant therefor.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur.