Fisher v. State, 97-2560.
| Decision Date | 20 November 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-2560.,97-2560. |
| Parties | Terrence T. FISHER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender; David P. Gauldin, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General; Denise O. Simpson, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Appellant Terrence E. Fisher was convicted of burglary and dealing in stolen property and appeals a portion of the order entered by the trial court that he pay restitution in the total amount of $4,614. He seeks review of only that part of the restitution order related to the value of jewelry he took during the burglary. We reverse and remand for a new restitution hearing only as to that part of the order.
At the restitution hearing, the victim testified that she had lost a computer, some jewelry and some business records that she had to reconstruct. On direct examination, she testified that she valued her lost jewelry at $2714 and that her insurance company covered $1000 of this loss. On cross-examination, she testified that three containers of jewelry were taken but she could not describe many of the pieces that were lost because she did not have her insurance inventory sheet with her at the hearing. She was able only to give an estimated value of four pieces of jewelry which she described and valued at $510. Appellant argues that there was insufficient evidence of value of any more than the $510 to which the victim specifically testified during the hearing. We agree.
When the amount of restitution is disputed, the State has the burden of proof at the restitution hearing, but is held only to a preponderance of the evidence standard. § 775.089(7), Fla.Stat. (1997). In a case such as this, where some items of jewelry were identified and a value placed on them, where other items of jewelry were identified but no value placed on them, and where other jewelry was not identified at all, the State must produce some specific evidence or testimony as to the nature and value of the pieces claimed to have been taken.
While the owner of property is generally determined to be competent to testify as to the value of lost property, State v. Hawthorne, 573 So.2d 330, 332 (Fla.1991), basic fairness seems to dictate that the owner should be required, at a minimum, to identify what property has been lost so that the trier of fact may reasonably determine the value of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duncan v. State, 2D15–3232.
...value of the stolen items.” Hunter v. State, 48 So.3d 174, 175 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (alteration in original) (quoting Fisher v. State, 722 So.2d 873, 874 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) ). In Fisher, just as in this case, the victim was unable to identify all of the property that was stolen. See Fisher,......
-
Santana v. State, 5D01-118.
...a preponderance of the evidence rather than to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt. § 775.089(7), Fla. Stat. (1999); Fisher v. State, 722 So.2d 873 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); J.O.S. v. State, 668 So.2d 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), approved, 689 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 1997). The primary objectives of res......
-
Gonzalez v. State
...$4,000 worth of goods in the burglary. The First District Court of Appeal dealt with a nearly identical scenario in Fisher v. State, 722 So.2d 873 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). In Fisher, the victim testified that several items of jewelry had been stolen, but that she could not describe many of the ......
- Loehrke v. State, 97-1557.