Lauder v. State

Henderson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant was convicted in á trial before a court arid jury of the larceny of a tape recorder valued at-$199.95. His ¹⁴⁴ first two contentions are that the trial court erred in admitting a price tag as evidence of value and in permitting an unqualified witness to testify as to value. Miss Cook, the Chief Security Officer for May Department Stores, Inc., testified that she saw the appellant take a recorder from a display counter and conceal it under his coat.

He was arrested on his way out of the store. Miss Cook also testified that a price tag, which she identified, had been attached to the recorder at the time it was removed' from the counter and was still attached at the time of the arrest. Other articles on the counter, and throughout .the store, had similar tags attached. The tag was put in evidence over objection on the ground that there was no evidence as to who had priced the article and “that would be hearsay.” The State had the burden of showing that the article taken had a value of $100.00 or more, under the count for grand larceny based on Code (1957), Art. 27, sec. 340.

Cofflin v. State, 230 Md. 139, 144 . The test is market value,, and particularly retail value. People v. Irrizari, 182 N. Y. S. 2d 361 (N. Y.); Jewell v. State, 216 Md. 110, 112 . A price tag is a written representation of the price at which the.owner offers to sell the article in question.

We think it falls squarely within the scope of Code (1957), Art. 35, sec. 59, as a-document prepared or entry made in the regular course of. business. We have held that section to apply to a wide variety of documents. See Eastover Co. v. All Metal Fabr., 221 Md. 428, 435 (Bills); Tellez v. Canton Railroad Co., 212 Md. 423, 433 (bills of lading); Morrow v. State, 190 Md. 559, 561 (sales slip). See also Mt.

Vernon Co. v. Teschner, 108 Md. 158 , and Munshower v. State, 55 Md. 11, 24 . The rule applies in criminal as well as civil cases. Jones v. State, 205 Md. 528, 533 . A case closely in point is Caten v. Salt City Movers &