Roundtree v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Roundtree v. State

382 S.E.2d 173, 191 Ga. App. 423, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 655

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 3, 1989

DocketA89A0659

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 382 S.E.2d 173 (Roundtree v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Roundtree v. State, 382 S.E.2d 173, 191 Ga. App. 423, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 655 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

Defendant was convicted of theft by taking (of property with a value exceeding $500). He appeals, contending the State failed to prove that the value of the stolen property exceeded $500. Held:

Three items were stolen from the victim’s house: a television set, a microwave oven and a coffeemaker. There was evidence that the microwave oven and the coffeemaker were purchased approximately four months before the theft occurred, were in good condition and had been given to the victim as Christmas gifts; that the microwave oven had been used two or three times and the coffeemaker had never been used; and, that the microwave oven cost $489.95 and the coffeemaker cost $79.95. With regard to the television set, the victim testified that it was purchased five or six years previously for $500; that it was a 19" color television set and was in good working order.

Although there was no direct testimony concerning the actual value of the stolen property, we find the circumstantial evidence sufficient to enable the jury to determine that the value of the stolen property exceeded $500. Ford v. State, 183 Ga. App. 566, 569 (3) (359 [424]*424SE2d 435). After all, the jury was aware of the market value of such “everyday objects” as a television set, a microwave oven and a coffeemaker. See Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Clements, 92 Ga. App. 451, 455 (2) (88 SE2d 809). See also Ford v. State, 183 Ga. App. 566, supra; Moore v. State, 171 Ga. App. 911 (2), 912 (321 SE2d 413). The jury’s awareness, coupled with evidence concerning the cost, time of purchase, and condition of the stolen property, was sufficient to authorize a conviction for theft by taking (of property with a value exceeding $500). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for a directed verdict of acquittal and in imposing a felony sentence.

Decided May 3, 1989. M. E. Thompson, Jr., for appellant. H. Lamar Cole, District Attorney, J. David Miller, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Carley, C. J., and Beasley, J., concur.

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

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

Defendant was convicted of theft by taking (of property with a value exceeding $500). He appeals, contending the State failed to prove that the value of the stolen property exceeded $500. Held:

Three items were stolen from the victim’s house: a television set, a microwave oven and a coffeemaker. There was evidence that the microwave oven and the coffeemaker were purchased approximately four months before the theft occurred, were in good condition and had been given to the victim as Christmas gifts; that the microwave oven had been used two or three times and the coffeemaker had never been used; and, that the microwave oven cost $489.95 and the coffeemaker cost $79.95. With regard to the television set, the victim testified that it was purchased five or six years previously for $500; that it was a 19" color television set and was in good working order.

Although there was no direct testimony concerning the actual value of the stolen property, we find the circumstantial evidence sufficient to enable the jury to determine that the value of the stolen property exceeded $500. Ford v. State, 183 Ga. App. 566, 569 (3) (359 [424]*424SE2d 435). After all, the jury was aware of the market value of such “everyday objects” as a television set, a microwave oven and a coffeemaker. See Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Clements, 92 Ga. App. 451, 455 (2) (88 SE2d 809). See also Ford v. State, 183 Ga. App. 566, supra; Moore v. State, 171 Ga. App. 911 (2), 912 (321 SE2d 413). The jury’s awareness, coupled with evidence concerning the cost, time of purchase, and condition of the stolen property, was sufficient to authorize a conviction for theft by taking (of property with a value exceeding $500). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for a directed verdict of acquittal and in imposing a felony sentence.

Decided May 3, 1989. M. E. Thompson, Jr., for appellant. H. Lamar Cole, District Attorney, J. David Miller, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Carley, C. J., and Beasley, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

382 S.E.2d 173, 191 Ga. App. 423, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roundtree-v-state-gactapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack