People v. Codding, 26522
| Decision Date | 21 June 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 26522,26522 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Blake Harold CODDING, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Jean E. Dubofsky, Deputy Atty. Gen., Edward G. Donovan, Sol. Gen., James S. Russell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
Rollie R. Rogers, Colorado State Public Defender, James F. Dumas, Jr., Chief Deputy State Public Defender, Norman R. Mueller, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
Defendant was found guilty of felony theft 1 in a trial to the court. He was accused of shoplifting two saws and a drill set from a large department store. A store detective testified that she apprehended the defendant with the merchandise after she observed him walk out of the store without paying for them.
Defendant now asserts on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the value of the stolen goods was over $100, a necessary element of the crime of felony theft, and therefore that his conviction on that charge should be reversed. We agree that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for felony theft, but hold that it was sufficient to sustain his conviction on the lesser included offense of petty theft. 2 Accordingly, we reverse and remand for resentencing.
The only evidence offered by the People to prove that the value of the stolen goods was over $100 was the testimony of a store detective who had been on the job for eight months. Over defendant's objection, she was permitted to testify that the total value of the stolen merchandise was around $133, based on the price tags attached to the items when she recovered them from the defendant. She also stated that the price tags on the stolen goods were identical to those on similar saws and drills in the store. We hold the trial court improperly considered such evidence in the instant case because no adequate foundation was laid to properly admit it.
The record does not indicate that the store detective was qualified to testify of her own personal knowledge as to the value of the stolen merchandise. Though she professed that part of her job was to know the price of the more expensive pilferageable goods, she admitted that she was not involved in the pricing of the merchandise, had no access to wholesale or retail price lists, and would not know if the goods were mismarked. As such, she was not qualified to testify concerning the value of goods as would a shop owner or manager. Compare, Maisel v. People, 166 Colo. 161, 442 P.2d 399 (1968). Her knowledge was gained exclusively from the price tags on the merchandise.
The price tags, however, should have been excluded as hearsay in this case because they constituted a written record prepared by someone other than the detective and were offered for the truth of the matter asserted on the tags, namely, the retail cost of the merchandise. The tags were inadmissible under the business record exception because no proper foundation had been laid establishing the method of preparing the tags. See Crim.P. 26.2. Though the store detective testified how the tags were used by the cashiers to charge customers, she stated she was not aware of the process by which the tags were marked, how or when the prices were generally...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
80 Hawai'i 126, State v. Malufau
...v. Eliason, 25 Ariz.App. 523, 544 P.2d 1124, 1130 (1976); People v. Tubby, 34 Cal.2d 72, 207 P.2d 51, 56 (1949); People v. Codding, 191 Colo. 168, 551 P.2d 192, 193-94 (1976); State v. Grant, 177 Conn. 140, 411 A.2d 917, 920-21 (1979); People v. Oliver, 38 Ill.App.3d 166, 347 N.E.2d 865, 86......
-
State v. Green
...22 Wash.App. 415, 419, 591 P.2d 789 (1979); State v. Liles, 11 Wash.App. 166, 171-173, 521 P.2d 973 (1974); see also People v. Codding, 191 Colo. 168, 551 P.2d 192 (1976); United States v. Thweatt, 433 F.2d 1226, 1234 (D.C.Cir.1970); Austin v. United States, 382 F.2d 129, 142 (D.C.Cir.1967)......
-
In re Heidari
...Martell, 22 Wash.App. 415, 419, 591 P.2d 789 (1979) ; State v. Liles, 11 Wash.App. 166, 171–73, 521 P.2d 973 (1974) ; People v. Codding, 191 Colo. 168, 551 P.2d 192 (1976) ; United States v. Thweatt, 140 U.S.App. D.C. 120, 433 F.2d 1226, 1234 (1970) ; Austin v. United States, 127 U.S.App. D......
-
State v. Garza
...value. See, State v. McPhie, 104 Idaho 652, 662 P.2d 233 (1983); Lee v. State, 264 Ark. 384, 571 S.W.2d 603 (1978); People v. Codding, 191 Colo. 168, 551 P.2d 192 (1976). In the final analysis, the State presented evidence on price, but nothing on value to justify a finding of theft punisha......
-
Proving Covered Personal Property Loss Under a Homeowners Policy
...may overstate the property value; the better reasoned rule is that such evidence is speculative and unreliable). [35] People v. Codding, 551 P.2d 192, 193 (Colo. 1976). [36] CRS § 18-4-414(1)-(2) provides that "[e]vidence offered to prove retail value may include, but shall not be limited t......