AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant broke into her ex-husband's house and destroyed the personal property of her ex-husband's new girlfriend, who had recently moved in. She was charged and convicted of criminal damage to property over $1000. The Defendant contested the sufficiency of evidence regarding the value of the damaged property.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the State failed to introduce sufficient evidence to establish the value of the damaged property beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Appellee (State): Contended that the testimony regarding the cost paid for the items and their condition before and after the damage provided sufficient evidence for the jury to determine the value of the goods.

Legal Issues

• Whether the State introduced sufficient evidence to establish the value of the damaged property beyond a reasonable doubt.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the Defendant's conviction for criminal damage to property over $1000 and held that double jeopardy bars retrial.

Reasons

• Per RODERICK T. KENNEDY, J. (JONATHAN B. SUTIN, J., and TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, J., concurring):
  The Court found that the State's evidence, primarily based on the purchase price of the damaged items and photographs of their damaged state, was insufficient to inform the jury about the property's value at the time it was damaged. The Court emphasized that testimony about the purchase price alone, without evidence of the items' present value or the cost of repair versus replacement cost, could not justify a rational trier of fact finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant damaged property worth more than $1000. Consequently, the Court reversed the Defendant's conviction and ruled that double jeopardy principles bar retrial, as the conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence.