People v. Lizarraga
| Decision Date | 05 January 1954 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 2452 |
| Citation | 122 Cal.App.2d 436,264 P.2d 953 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. LIZARRAGA. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Peter M. Koutchis, Sacramento, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., by Doris H. Maier, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Defendant was charged with grand theft. After trial by jury he was found guilty as charged and sentenced to prison for the term prescribed by law. He appeals from the judgment.
Defendant does not deny the commission of the crime. In fact, he admitted the theft from the witness stand. His sole point on this appeal is that he should have been convicted of petty theft for the reason that the evidence did not support the implied finding that the value of the property stolen exceeded $200. Penal Code, § 487, subd. 1.
On December 23, 1952, defendant and two others entered the store of Marcroft and Sons. While one of his confederates diverted the attention of the person in charge of the store, defendant walked out with a fur piece that had been on display in the front of the store. He was almost immediately apprehended.
The price marked on the tag attached to the stolen fur piece was $250 plus tax, or a total of $307. Allen Marcroft, a furrier of 25 years' experience, testified that this was a fair market price; that their prices were generally lower than those of other local fur stores. He estimated the wholesale price at $165. Mr. Beckman, another experienced furrier, estimated the fair market value of the piece at from $235 to $240, plus tax. He estimated the wholesale price at between $120 and $150.
Defendant contends that there was not a proper evaluation of the fur piece because the reasonable value was not definitely established; that the markup on furs is excessively high and that 'the fair market value is not as high as the retail price or as low as the wholesale price, but substantially in between.' There is also a suggestion that the jury was permitted to take the taxes into consideration but the record shows that this was not the case.
Defendant relies on People v. Simpson, 26 Cal.App.2d 223, 79 P.2d 119, in which the offense was reduced to petty theft because the only evidence of value was produced by a witness who had no knowledge of the property involved or of property of that kind generally. In the instant case the witnesses were admittedly competent.
'The value to be placed upon stolen articles for the purpose of establishing a felony...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Grant
...135 Cal.Rptr. 602.) Fair market value is "not the value of the property to any particular individual." ( People v. Lizarraga (1954) 122 Cal.App.2d 436, 438, 264 P.2d 953 ( Lizarraga ).) Fair market value may be established by opinion or circumstantial evidence. (See People v. Zamudio (2008)......
-
State v. Sorrell
...prices, established by experts if necessary, may fix the range within which the jury may find fair market value. People v. Lizarraga, 122 Cal.App.2d 436, 264 P.2d 953 (1954). But where the wholesale and retail prices are both sufficient to establish grand theft, it is immaterial whether the......
-
State v. Boyken
...is by reference to one or the other. State v. Sorrell, 95 Ariz. 220, 224, 388 P.2d 429, 431--432 (1964); People v. Lizarraga, 122 Cal.App.2d 436, 437, 264 P.2d 953, 954 (1954); State v. Carroll, supra, 186 Neb. at 150, 181 N.W.2d at 437--438. See Maisel v. People, 166 Colo. 161, 164--165, 4......
-
People v. Preader
...as well." (People v. Boyer (2006) 38 Cal.4th 412, 441, fn. 17.)2. Owner's Opinion of Stolen Firesuit's Worth Citing People v. Lizarraga (1954) 122 Cal.App.2d 436, defendant asserts that when the prosecution asked for Matthew's opinion of the stolen firesuit's value and defense counsel objec......