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 was convicted of shoplifting a gold necklace from a department store. The jewelry department manager testified that the ticket price of the necklace was $600 but admitted that such jewelry was typically sold at a 50%-60% discount, as it was rarely sold at the ticket price. The Defendant disputed the value of the necklace, which determined whether the offense was a felony or a misdemeanor (paras 1-2).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: Convicted the Defendant of felony shoplifting.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the value of the necklace exceeded $250, as required for a felony conviction (para 1).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the ticket price of $600 was sufficient evidence to establish the market value of the necklace (para 4).
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to establish that the market value of the stolen necklace exceeded $250, as required for a felony shoplifting conviction?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the felony conviction and remanded the case for resentencing on the lesser-included offense of misdemeanor shoplifting (para 1).
Reasons
Per Hartz J. (Black and Flores JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the ticket price of the necklace was insufficient to establish its market value beyond a reasonable doubt. The jewelry department manager testified that fine jewelry was rarely sold at the ticket price and was typically discounted by 50%-60%. This testimony rebutted the presumption that the ticket price represented the market value. The Court emphasized that market value is defined as the price at which the property could ordinarily be bought or sold, and the evidence presented did not support a finding that the necklace's market value exceeded $250. The Court concluded that a rational juror could not have found the ticket price to represent the market value based on the evidence presented (paras 3-9).