This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
- On September 9, 2011, the Defendant stole a discarded cattle guard and subsequently sold it to a local scrap yard for $254.80. About a week later, the Defendant repurchased the same cattle guard from the scrap yard for $551.80. During the trial, the cattle guard's owner testified to its fair market value being $10,000 initially, but later stated a value of $2,500 upon further questioning by the judge. The Defendant was convicted of larceny over $500, classified as a fourth-degree felony.
Procedural History
- [Not applicable or not found]
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence presented was insufficient to support his conviction, specifically contesting the determination that the scrap metal (cattle guard) he stole had a market value exceeding $500.
- Plaintiff-Appellee: The summary does not explicitly detail the Plaintiff-Appellee's arguments, but it can be inferred that the Plaintiff-Appellee argued for the sufficiency of evidence supporting the Defendant's conviction based on the fair market value of the stolen cattle guard.
Legal Issues
- Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction of larceny over $500, given the contested market value of the stolen cattle guard.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for larceny over $500.
Reasons
-
Per LINDA M. VANZI, J. (CYNTHIA A. FRY, J., TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, J., concurring), the Court concluded that the district court's decision was supported by substantial evidence. The owner's testimony regarding the cattle guard's fair market value of $2,500 and the Defendant's admission of repurchasing it for $551.80 were deemed sufficient. The Court emphasized that it does not reweigh evidence on appeal but defers to the district court's credibility assessments and conflict resolutions in witness testimony.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.