Freeman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Freeman v. State

110 So. 3d 970, 2013 WL 1316450, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 5359

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 3, 2013

DocketNo. 4D12-304

StatusPublished

This text of 110 So. 3d 970 (Freeman v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Freeman v. State, 110 So. 3d 970, 2013 WL 1316450, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 5359 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

STEVENSON, J.

Defendant Stepphone Freeman appeals his convictions for grand theft and burglary of a dwelling. The only evidence of the stolen property’s value was the testimony of the owner as to its purchase price. However, this court has previously held that evidence of purchase price is insufficient to establish current value. Aycock v. State, 87 So.3d 1259, 1260 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); see also Marrero v. State, 71 So.3d 881, 891 (Fla.2011) (holding there is no “life experience” exception to the general rule that the State must establish the value of property)^ We reverse defendant’s conviction for grand theft and remand to the trial court with instructions to vacate the conviction and enter a judgment of petit theft. We affirm defendant’s conviction for burglary of a dwelling, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s evi-dentiary ruling that the defendant “opened the door” to questions about the nature of his prior convictions. See Allred v. State, 642 So.2d 650, 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (impeachment evidence that defendant had hit former spouse and former girlfriend was admissible when defendant asserted he would not strike a woman).

Reversed in part; Affirmed in part.

CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

STEVENSON, J.

Defendant Stepphone Freeman appeals his convictions for grand theft and burglary of a dwelling. The only evidence of the stolen property’s value was the testimony of the owner as to its purchase price. However, this court has previously held that evidence of purchase price is insufficient to establish current value. Aycock v. State, 87 So.3d 1259, 1260 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); see also Marrero v. State, 71 So.3d 881, 891 (Fla.2011) (holding there is no “life experience” exception to the general rule that the State must establish the value of property)^ We reverse defendant’s conviction for grand theft and remand to the trial court with instructions to vacate the conviction and enter a judgment of petit theft. We affirm defendant’s conviction for burglary of a dwelling, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s evi-dentiary ruling that the defendant “opened the door” to questions about the nature of his prior convictions. See Allred v. State, 642 So.2d 650, 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (impeachment evidence that defendant had hit former spouse and former girlfriend was admissible when defendant asserted he would not strike a woman).

Reversed in part; Affirmed in part.

CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 So. 3d 970, 2013 WL 1316450, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 5359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/freeman-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack