☢ test - Í

damage calculation on other people's observations of the damage and a window installer's estimate of the cost to replace each window; there was no evidence that the repairs occurred. As we held previously in a similar case, the estimate is inadmissible hearsay. Adams [ v. State, 300 Ga.App. 294, 300(2)(b) (684 S.E.2d 404) (2009).] See also In re: J.T., 285 Ga.App. 465, 466(1) (646 S.E.2d 523) (2007); In re: A.F., 236 Ga.App. 60(1) (510 S.E.2d 910) (1999). Furthermore, the property owner's estimate was for the cumulative damage done to the property, and there was no evidence admitted at trial regarding the number of windows that would have to be replaced in the home[s] that A.C.R–M. himself damaged. [fn] ‘This is clearly insufficient to establish the value of the damages to be in excess of $500.’ See Adams, 300 Ga.App. at 300(b).” Compare Barnes (July 30, 1999), below. Porter v. State, 308 Ga.App. 121, 706 S.E.2d 620 (February 28, 2011). Theft by taking conviction reduced to misdemeanor, as State failed to prove value of property taken. “Eubanks's testimony that the fishing poles were worth $60, which was based on his experience in buying them, was sufficient to establish their current fair market value. Perdue [ v. State, 300 Ga.App. 588, 589-590 (1) (685 S.E.2d 489) (2009)] (‘the testimony of the owner of the value of stolen items based upon his experience in buying them, coupled with the jury's awareness of the value of everyday objects, is sufficient to allow the jury to consider such opinion evidence and make reasonable deductions exercising their own knowledge and ideas’) (punctuation and footnote omitted); Roundtree v. State, 191 Ga.App. 423 (382 S.E.2d 173) (1989) (jury's awareness of market value of everyday objects coupled with evidence concerning the cost, date of purchase, and condition of the property, was sufficient evidence of stolen property's value). And the jury could find the value of the extension ladder, an everyday object, was worth $150. Cf. Roundtree, supra. But the state did not establish the fair market value of the slide [an unusual, custom-made item]. ‘[T]he testimony of the owner of the property as to its value without giving reasons therefor is insufficient.’ (Footnote omitted.) Barron v. State, 291 Ga.App. 494, 496(1) (662 S.E.2d 285) (2008).” Accord, Harris v. State , 328 Ga.App. 852, 763 S.E.2d 133 (August 20, 2014) (victim’s experience buying and selling car parts provided basis for opinion on value of stolen parts). Wilson v. State, 304 Ga.App. 743, 698 S.E.2d 6 (June 10, 2010). Defendant’s conviction for theft by taking and related offenses affirmed; evidence supported finding that stolen property had value exceeding $500. “Wilson argues that the State failed to adequately prove the value of Russell's stolen property because Russell's cost price testimony was not proof of value at the time of the theft. However, in addition to cost price, Russell also testified about the condition and age of each item at the time of the theft: television in good condition purchased two years prior for $897; stereo in good condition purchased four years prior for $150; speakers in good condition purchased ten years prior for $1,000; three designer handbags in “brand new” condition purchased five months prior for a total of $983; and an unused comforter purchased one month prior for $149. After reciting these facts, Russell then testified that the stolen items had a total value of more than $500 at the time they were stolen. While it is true that evidence of purchase price, standing alone, is insufficient to establish stolen property's value, see Dunbar v. State, 146 Ga.App. 136, 136-137(2) (245 S.E.2d 486) (1978), ‘[c]ost price of an item coupled properly with other evidence such as a showing of the condition of the item at the time of purchase and at the time its value is in issue may be admitted as an element upon which an opinion may be formed as to the item's value ... [D]irect proof of value is not essential in prosecutions for theft by taking but proof of value may be shown by inference.’ (Citations omitted.) Ragsdale v. State, 170 Ga.App. 448, 449-450 (317 S.E.2d 288) (1984). And ‘[a]n owner does not have to be an expert to testify as to the value of [her] property ..., provided [s]he has experience or familiarity with such values.’ Williams v. State, 246 Ga.App. 347, 352(2) (540 S.E.2d 305) (2000).” Accord, Baker v. State , 311 Ga.App. 532, 716 S.E.2d 580 (August 26, 2011). Harris v. State, 295 Ga.App. 727, 673 S.E.2d 76 (January 27, 2009). Evidence was sufficient to establish value of stolen lawn mower; witness testified “based on his training as a loss prevention officer, his familiarity with products in the store, and his personal experience in the store.” “‘Opinion evidence as to the value of an item has probative value and may be admitted if a foundation is laid showing that the witness has some knowledge, experience or familiarity with the value of the property or similar property and if the witness gives reasons for the value assessed and has had an opportunity for forming a correct opinion.’ Wilkerson v. State, 246 Ga.App. 621, 622(1) (540 S.E.2d 303) (2000).” Overruled on other grounds, Harris v. State , 286 Ga. 245, 686 S.E.2d 777 (November 23, 2009) (defendant couldn’t be charged with theft of motor vehicle based on taking of riding mower). Alford v. State, 292 Ga.App. 514, 664 S.E.2d 870 (July 7, 2008). “‘While the price tag of the merchandise taken or a copy thereof may be used to prove value, testimony on that issue will also suffice if the witness has an opportunity to form a correct opinion on the matter. We have routinely permitted store employees who were familiar with the items taken to establish their value .’ (Citations omitted.) Scott v. State, 234 Ga.App. 378, 379(1) (506 S.E.2d 880) (1998).” Accord, Patterson (April 7, 2005), and Bell (August 18, 2003), both below.