M.M.S. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

M.M.S. v. State

877 So. 2d 941, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 11222, 2004 WL 1666051

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 28, 2004

DocketNo. 2D03-3347

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 877 So. 2d 941 (M.M.S. 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

M.M.S. v. State, 877 So. 2d 941, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 11222, 2004 WL 1666051 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

WHATLEY, Judge.

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.¹ 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).

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.

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

WHATLEY, Judge.

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.¹ 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).

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

877 So. 2d 941, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 11222, 2004 WL 1666051, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mms-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack