Sec. 32.02. VALUE. (a) Subject to the additional criteria of Subsections (b) and (c), value under this chapter is:
(1) the fair market value of the property or service at the time and place of the offense; or
(2) if the fair market value of the property cannot be ascertained, the cost of replacing the property within a reasonable time after the offense.
(b) The value of documents, other than those having a readily ascertainable market value, is:
(1) the amount due and collectible at maturity less any part that has been satisfied, if the document constitutes evidence of a debt; or
(2) the greatest amount of economic loss that the owner might reasonably suffer by virtue of loss of the document, if the document is other than evidence of a debt.
(c) If property or service has value that cannot be reasonably ascertained by the criteria set forth in Subsections (a) and (b), the property or service is deemed to have a value of $750 or more but less than $2,500.
(d) If the actor proves by a preponderance of the evidence that he gave consideration for or had a legal interest in the property or service stolen, the amount of the consideration or the value of the interest so proven shall be deducted from the value of the property or service ascertained under Subsection (a), (b), or (c) to determine value for purposes of this chapter.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Amended by:
Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1251 (H.B. 1396), Sec. 14, eff. September 1, 2015.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2001–2021 · leading case:
Robalin v. State, 224 S.W.3d 470 (Tex. App. 2007).
Robalin v. State, 224 S.W.3d 470 (Tex. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “Tex. Pen.Code Ann. § 32.02(a)(1). Fair market value is the amount the property would sell for in cash, giving a reasonable time for selling it.”
Tanguma v. State, 47 S.W.3d 663 (Tex. App. 2001).
“TexPen.Code Ann. § 32.02(a)(Vemon Supp. 2001).”
Bearman v. State, 425 S.W.3d 328 (Tex. App. 2010).
“Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.02 (d) (Vernon 2003).”
Antonio Salinas v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2021).
“[Salinas] failed to establish a violation of Texas Penal Code §32.02. The USB [thumb drive] is not a “computer” device and was not connected or related to a computer device in which [Salinas] had an expectation of privacy.”
John Jacob Uballe v. State (Tex. App. 2010).
“While the statute includes one species of burglary that requires prior intent, see Tex. Penal Code § 32.02(a)(1), it includes another that does not.”
John Jacob Uballe v. State (Tex. App. 2010).
“While the statute includes one species of burglary that requires prior intent, see Tex. Penal Code § 32.02(a)(1), it includes another that does not.”
Breed, Steven Eric (Tex. App. 2015).
“STATEMENT OF THE CASE In two separate indictments, Petitioner was charged with burglary of a habitation in violation of Texas Penal Code § 32.02. Petitioner pled not guilty to these offenses.”
— Tex. Penal Code § 32.02(a) — 1 case
Tanguma v. State, 47 S.W.3d 663 (Tex. App. 2001).
“TexPen.Code Ann. § 32.02(a)(Vemon Supp. 2001).”
— Tex. Penal Code § 32.02(a)(1) — 3 cases
Robalin v. State, 224 S.W.3d 470 (Tex. App. 2007).
“Tex. Pen.Code Ann. § 32.02(a)(1). Fair market value is the amount the property would sell for in cash, giving a reasonable time for selling it.”
John Jacob Uballe v. State (Tex. App. 2010).
“While the statute includes one species of burglary that requires prior intent, see Tex. Penal Code § 32.02(a)(1), it includes another that does not.”
John Jacob Uballe v. State (Tex. App. 2010).
“While the statute includes one species of burglary that requires prior intent, see Tex. Penal Code § 32.02(a)(1), it includes another that does not.”
— Tex. Penal Code § 32.02(d) — 1 case
Robalin v. State, 224 S.W.3d 470 (Tex. App. 2007).
“Tex. Pen.Code Ann. § 32.02(a)(1). Fair market value is the amount the property would sell for in cash, giving a reasonable time for selling it.”
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.