State v. Carroll
| Decision Date | 27 November 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 37586,37586 |
| Citation | 181 N.W.2d 436,186 Neb. 148 |
| Parties | STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. Michael Edward CARROLL, Appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. One who is shown to be acquainted with property and its fair and reasonable value in the market is competent to testify as to such value.
2. The qualification of a witness to give testimony as to the value of personal property is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its ruling thereon will only be disturbed when clearly erroneous.
3. Where items of personal property are bought and sold by dealers in the regular course of business, evidence of the dealers wholesale price is evidence of the fair and reasonable market value for the purpose of distinguishing between grand and petit larceny.
Lathrop & Albracht, Omaha, for appellant.
Clarence A. H. Meyer, Atty. Gen., Bernard L. Packett, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lincoln, for appellee.
Heard before WHITE, C.J., and CARTER, SPENCER, BOSLAUGH, SMITH, McCOWN and NEWTON, JJ.
The defendant was found guilty of grand larceny and sentenced to a term of 2 to 5 years in the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex.
The assignments of error relate to the testimony of Orlan Smith as to the value of the stolen merchandise, and whether the State failed to prove the statutory value.
Orlan Smith was the shop foreman and new car manager of Stan Olsen Pontiac, Incorporated, the owner of the property stolen. The property consisted of new tires, wheels, and rims removed from new Pontiac automobiles stored on a fence-enclosed parking lot of Olsen Pontiac. Smith testified that he had been associated with Pontiac dealers for 20 years, and during that time, he had purchased and sold tires and rims. He had also checked the invoices and records of Olsen Pontiac as to the price of tires, wheels, and rims. In answer to separate questions as to the fair and reasonable value or market price of tires, wheels, and rims of the specific kind involved, his answers were that the cost of the tires to the dealer was $30 each; dealer cost of the rally-type wheels was $21 each; and the dealer cost of the plain black rims was $10.95 each. The total cost to the dealer for all items stolen was $439. The jury found and declared the value of the stolen property to be $430. To constitute grand larceny, the statute specifies a value of $100 or upwards. S. 28--506, R.R.S.1963.
The defendant asserts that there was not sufficient foundation to admit the testimony of Orlan Smith as to value. One who is shown to be acquainted with property and its fair and reasonable value in the market is competent to testify as to such value. The qualifications of a witness to give testimony as to the value of personal property is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its ruling thereon will only...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Garza
...in civil actions apply in a criminal case, to determine the grade of the theft prosecuted. See, State v. Weik, supra; State v. Carroll, 186 Neb. 148, 181 N.W.2d 436 (1970). In Robinson v. State, 107 Neb. 591, 592, 186 N.W. 977, 978 (1922), which involved a prosecution for theft, this court ......
-
State v. Pierce
...mischief. However, § 28-519 does not prescribe a method to determine pecuniary loss. In State v. Weik, supra, and State v. Carroll, 186 Neb. 148, 181 N.W.2d 436 (1970), this court held that the rules for establishing value in civil cases are applicable to distinguish between grand and petit......
-
State v. Ybarra
...judge is authorized to select either replacement cost or "selling price" as fair market value of goods stolen); State v. Carroll, 186 Neb. 148, 181 N.W.2d 436 (1970) (holding that fair and reasonable market value of stolen property may be established in larceny prosecution by evidence of wh......
-
State v. Boyken
...larceny where the classification rests on value, the rules which establish value in civil cases generally apply. State v. Carroll, 186 Neb. 148, 150, 181 N.W.2d 436, 437 (1970); 50 Am.Jur.2d Larceny § 45, pp. 209--12; 52A C.J.S. Larceny § 118, pp. 617--620. As in a civil suit, an owner is c......