(a) For the purposes of this part, the value of property or services shall be ascertained as follows: (1) Except as otherwise specified in this section, value means the market value of the property or services at the time and place of the crime or, if such cannot be satisfactorily ascertained, the cost of replacement of the property or services within a reasonable time after the crime. (2) Whether or not they have been issued or delivered, written instruments, except those having a readily ascertainable market value such as some public and corporate bonds and securities, shall be evaluated as follows: (A) The value of an instrument constituting evidence of debt, such as a check, draft or promissory note, shall be deemed the amount due or collectible thereon, such figure ordinarily being the face amount of the indebtedness less any portion thereof which has been satisfied; (B) the value of any other instrument which creates, releases, discharges or otherwise affects any valuable legal right, privilege or obligation shall be deemed the greatest amount of economic loss which the owner of the instrument might reasonably suffer by virtue of the loss of the instrument. (3) When the value of property or services 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.
(b) Amounts included in thefts committed pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct, whether from the same person or several persons, may be aggregated in determining the grade of the offense.
(1969, P.A. 828, S. 123.)
Cited. 182 C. 52; 191 C. 180; 241 C. 439.
Cited. 7 CA 326; 9 CA 313; 19 CA 521; 25 CA 298; 37 CA 62; judgment reversed, see 237 C. 501. Definition of value is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to facts of case. 111 CA 543.
Evidence of trade-in value insufficient to establish market value or replacement cost for purposes of statute. 35 CS 531.
Subsec. (a):
Cited. 176 C. 239; 178 C. 416; 181 C. 172; 190 C. 191; 196 C. 166; Id., 225; Id., 247; Id., 396; 199 C. 308; 200 C. 113.
Cited. 5 CA 129; 12 CA 408; 33 CA 339; judgment reversed in part, see 232 C. 431; judgment reversed, see 235 C. 502. Subdiv. (1) cited. 46 CA 269. Subdiv. (1): Market value has been defined as the price that would in all probability result from fair negotiations, where the seller is willing to sell and the buyer desires to buy. 95 CA 248.
Subsec. (b):
Cited. 177 C. 243; 178 C. 649; 199 C. 462; 228 C. 926; 232 C. 431; judgment superseded by en banc reconsideration, see 235 C. 502; 235 C. 502. Thefts are part of “one scheme or course of conduct” if the acts constituting the crime charged are a series of thefts committed in a similar manner and are closely related in time. 305 C. 806.
Cited. 33 CA 339; judgment reversed in part, see 232 C. 431; judgment reversed, see 235 C. 502; 34 CA 250; 47 CA 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
46
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case:
State v. Brown, 668 A.2d 1288 (Conn. 1995).
State v. Brown, 668 A.2d 1288 (Conn. 1995).
· cites it 34× “The Appellate Court also concluded that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the defendant’s conviction of attempted larceny in the third degree because the court determined, as a matter of statutory construction, that the reference in General Statutes § 53a-121 (b) 11 to…”
State v. Desimone, 696 A.2d 1235 (Conn. 1997).
· cites it 40× “On appeal, 3 the defendant claims that the trial court improperly failed to instruct the jury under General Statutes § 53a-121 (b) 4 that in determining the degree of the crime of larceny by receiving stolen property, the value of multiple items of allegedly stolen property may…”
State v. Browne, 854 A.2d 13 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004).
· cites it 13× “” General Statutes § 53a-121 (a) (1). “Market value has been defined as the price that would in all probability .”
State v. Scielzo, 460 A.2d 951 (Conn. 1983).
· cites it 10× “" General Statutes § 53a-121 (a) provides: "[T]he value of property.”
State v. Spikes, 961 A.2d 426 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008).
· cites it 15× “On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the convictions of larceny in the second degree, burglary in the third degree, burglary in the second degree and attempt to commit burglary in the second degree, (2) the trial…”
State v. Baker, 437 A.2d 843 (Conn. 1980).
· cites it 12× “The defendant's trial counsel did not request any such instruction or take an exception to the charge as given on these grounds. The court instructed the jury that in order to convict the defendant of the crime of larceny in the first degree they must find that the value of the…”
State v. Fauntleroy, 921 A.2d 622 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007).
· cites it 9× “On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the state produced insufficient evidence for the jury to find him guilty of all charges and that the trial court was thus obligated to render a judgment of acquittal, (2) the court improperly instructed the jury on an essential element of…”
State v. Brown, 635 A.2d 861 (Conn. App. Ct. 1993).
· cites it 12× “General Statutes § 53a-124. The grade of a larceny offense is determined by the value of the property taken.”
State v. Collette, 507 A.2d 99 (Conn. 1986).
· cites it 4× “4 The defendants argue that the state failed to establish the essential element of value because Rebhun testified to the replacement value of the property and not to the fair market value.”
State v. Jennings, 9 A.3d 446 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011).
· cites it 6× “Specifically, the defendant argues that the court should have charged that, under General Statutes § 53a-121 (a) (3), 9 the jury had to value the stolen property at less than $50 if it did not credit the state’s evidence as to the market value of that property.”
State v. Rolli, 729 A.2d 245 (Conn. App. Ct. 1999).
· cites it 6× “2 Specifically, the defendant cites the definition of the value of property as it pertains to a charge of larceny as provided in General Statutes § 53a-121 3 and claims that the state failed to provide proof of the market value of the bicycles at the time of the crime or that…”
State v. Taylor, 492 A.2d 155 (Conn. 1985).
· cites it 4× “Melhorn’s property, and property owned by the other family members, it presented no evidence on which the jury could have concluded that Mrs. Melhorn’s property was worth over $2000.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-121(b) — 2 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.