An accused man filed for an appeal from a final judgment of his conviction and a sentence of three years probation entered by a jury decision finding him guilty of two counts of grand larceny. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the district court however reviewed the record and reveals that the man’s opponent did not show, as set forth in the information, that the property specifically a hubcaps at the time it was stolen had a fair market value of one hundred dollars or more.
The man was charged with three counts of grand larceny and the trial court granted a directed decision of acquittal as to one of the counts. The remaining two counts charged the accused man with unlawfully and feloniously stealing of hubcaps (petit larceny), valued at $100 or more, from the lawful custody of a man and a woman. With a three day trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on the two counts. After that, the trial court entered a final decision of conviction and sentence the man of three years probation from which he brought the appeal.
The man contends that his opponent failed to prove by competent substantial evidence, as to one of the counts, the ownership of the stolen property and, as to both of the counts, that the fair market value of the property was $100 or more at the time it was stolen.
Consequently, in the district court’s review of the record, it reveals that contrary to the man’s contention, his opponent did show by competent substantial evidence the ownership of the property stolen. However, the court agrees with the accused man’s contention with regard to the proof of the value of the hubcaps stolen from the man and the woman.
Based on records, an essential element of the crime of grand larceny is the value of the property stolen. It must have had a fair market value of $100 or more at the time it was stolen.
Apparently, the record reflects that during the trial of the instant case, the accused man questioned the victim about the fair market value of his hubcaps which were stolen. A Queens Criminal Lawyer said the accused man did respond that he had inquired of a hubcap dealer about the value of the hubcaps and was informed that he could replace them with new ones for $130.00 including tax. The accused man also questioned the woman victim and asked if she had made any inquiry with regard to replacing her hubcaps which were stolen. The woman responded that she also had called a hubcap dealer and had ascertained their replacement cost to be from $47.50 to $65.00 per hubcap.
In the court’s further opinion, the record revealed that the opponent failed to prove, as to each of the counts of grand larceny against the man, the fair market value of the hubcaps at the time they were stolen, as required by law. Instead, the opponent attempted to prove their replacement value.
In the instant case, the evidence fails to show the value of the stolen property was necessary to constitute the crime. Because of the fair market value of the stolen property at the time of the theft, the accused man may not be convicted of the offense of grand larceny. However, the proof was sufficient to establish the accused man’s guilt for two counts of petit larceny which is a necessarily included lesser offense.
As a result, a New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the district court decided to reverse the decision and sentence entered by the jury conviction and the cause is remanded with directions to the trial court to enter judgment and sentence on the lesser offenses of petit larceny.
Some people intentionally do things even if it is unlawful. They will rob or steal just to earn easy money without thinking that they might be caught. If you get yourself involved in this kind of matter, NYC Petit Larceny Attorneys or New York City Criminal Lawyers can offer you legal representation. If you’ve been a victim of larceny crimes and you want to file a complaint, you can have the NY Grand Larceny Lawyers at Stephen Bilkis and Associates represent you.