State v. Lewis
| Decision Date | 17 November 1909 |
| Citation | 123 N.W. 168,144 Iowa 483 |
| Parties | STATE v. LEWIS. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Clinton County; D. V. Jackson, Judge.
The defendant was convicted of grand larceny, and appeals. Affirmed.F. L. Halleran, for appellant.
H. W. Byers, Atty. Gen., and Chas. W. Lyon, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant was convicted of stealing a case of surgical instruments and two cases of eyeglasses from a physician's office. On this appeal he presents but one question for our consideration.
Dr. Eberall, whose property was stolen, was used as a witness for the state, and his examination quite conclusively showed that he knew nothing about the market value of the surgical instruments, if indeed they had any secondhand market value at that time. On his examination he in fact stated that the instruments had a secondhand market value, and this he followed by stating that he did not know what the market value was at the time they were stolen. Notwithstanding this testimony, the court permitted the witness to testify as to the cost of these instruments at the time he purchased them, and their probable cost if purchased new at the time they were taken. The defendant claims that the admission of this testimony was prejudicial error. It is, of course, true that the general market value of the property stolen is the criterion by which the jury is to determine whether the property stolen exceeds in value $20 or not; but this rule does not necessarily apply where the stolen goods have no general market value. In such cases the original cost of the goods may be shown in connection with their condition at the time of the larceny as tending to prove their value when taken. State v. McDermet, 138 Iowa, 86, 115 N. W. 884. While Dr. Eberall testified that the instruments had a general market value as secondhand instruments, the doctors called by the defendant were unable to fix such value without referring to the original cost of the several instruments. In other words, defendant's witnesses based their estimate of the market value on the cost of the instruments when new. This was in reality what Dr. Eberall did, and for that reason we think there was no prejudice on account of his testimony.
The jury found the value of the property taken to be $30. The value of the two cases of glasses might well have been found to be over $20, and adding to such sum the lowest estimate of value placed on the case of surgical instruments...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hardesty
...was obsolete and a market value of it was not readily determinable. State v. Register, 253 Iowa 495, 498, 112 N.W.2d 648; State v. Lewis, 144 Iowa 483, 123 N.W. 168. In these cases the rule was recognized that the general market value of stolen property is to govern in determining the value......
-
State v. Boyken
...willing seller in the open market place. The jury was told retail price might be evidence of fair market value. In State v. Lewis, 144 Iowa 483, 485, 123 N.W. 168, 169 (1909) the court approved an instruction requiring the jury to find the 'fair market value' of the property at the time it ......
- State v. Stafford
-
State v. Long
...that we think evidence of the selling price of this new pump was admissible as bearing on its fair market value. See State v. Lewis, 144 Iowa 483, 484-485, 123 N.W. 168; State v. Brightman, 252 Iowa 1278, 1286-1287, 110 N.W.2d 315, 320; 32 Am.Jur., Larceny, section 128, page 1039; 52 C.J.S.......