Jones v. State

Per Curiam. The appellant, James Raymond Jones, was convicted in the Criminal Court of Baltimore before Judge George Sachse, sitting without a jury, of larceny of goods of the value of $100.00 or more. He was sentenced to six years under the jurisdiction of the Department of Correction. The sole question raised by appellant on appeal is whether the State produced sufficient evidence to prove that the goods taken were of a value of $100.00 or more.

At the trial Mrs. Frances McElresth testified that on March 31, 1968 she was sitting on the doorsteps of her house located at 227 East Churchhill Street, directly across from the house of Herman H. Hoetzel, the complaining witness, when she saw appellant walk up the street, take a key, open the door and ³⁴⁶ enter the Hoetzel house. He came back out and walked down the street and shortly thereafter drove up in a ’59 or ’60 red and white Chevrolet accompanied by another man. He got out of the car, entered the house, and came back out carrying a floor model T.V. set which he put in the trunk of the automobile. The two men then drove off.

Herman H. Hoetzel testified that on the date in question he returned to his home at 228 East Churchhill Street in Baltimore, and when he entered the house he found his television set gone and also a radio and a wrist watch. When questioned as to the value of these articles, he testified as follows: “Q. What is the value of that television ? “A. $75 or $100. “Q. What was the value of that radio ? “A. I will say about $25. “Q. What was the value of the wrist watch? “A. I would say around $10.” There was no other testimony as to value produced by the State. The State has the burden of proving that the goods stolen were of the requisite value of $100.00 or more under Maryland Code (1967 Repl. Vol.), Article 27, § 340.

Cofflin v. State, 230 Md. 139, 144 , 186 A. 2d 216 ; Mercer v. State, 237 Md. 479, 484-85 , 206 A. 2d 797 ; Lehr v. State, 2 Md. App. 776, 778, 237 A. 2d 529 . The test is market value. Cofflin v. State, supra; Mercer v. State, supra; Lauder v. State, 233 Md. 142, 144 , 195 A. 2d 610 ; Lehr v. State, supra. The owner of personal property in common use may express an opinion as to its value without qualification as an expert.

Cofflin v. State, supra, at p. 142 and cases cited; Mercer, v. State, supra, at p. 484. In Cofflin v. State, supra, the sole witness for the State as to value was the committee of the incompetent who was the owner of the goods stolen. She had no personal knowledge of their value. The Court of Appeals held that her testimony was improperly admitted, since it was based upon an appraisal made by an expert appraiser, and, therefore, was hearsay and inadmissible.

Also, while she did testify as to the value of a clock and two swords, her valuation of the swords was based largely on sentiment and not market value, and the court found that ³⁴⁷ the State had