☢ test - Í

Barron v. State, 291 Ga.App. 494, 662 S.E.2d 285 (May 13, 2008). Evidence was sufficient to prove that stolen equipment was worth more than $500. “Although the testimony of the owner of the property as to its value without giving reasons therefor is insufficient, Hoard v. Wiley, 113 Ga.App. 328, 332 (147 S.E.2d 782) (1966) (‘when an opinion is sought from a witness as to the value of a thing, it is necessary that it be shown that the witness has some knowledge, experience or familiarity with the value of the thing or of similar things’), ‘[a]n owner does not have to be an expert to testify as to the value of his property (or that property under his control), provided he has experience or familiarity with such values.’ Williams v. State, 246 Ga.App. 347, 352 (540 S.E.2d 305) (2000). The weight to be given opinion evidence of market value is a matter for the jury. Id at 353. In this case, in addition to the fence company’s employees’s testimony as to value, [equipment-operator] Phillips testified that, from his experience in dealing with this type of equipment, the price [at which defendants offered to sell it] was much too low. … See Ragsdale v. State, 170 Ga.App. 448, 450 (317 S.E.2d 288) (1984) (probative evidence reflecting ten years of experience in the particular field to which the value evidence related); Pippin v. State, 166 Ga.App. 658, 659 (305 S.E.2d 408) (1983) (no error in felony sentencing where witness established reasons for his conclusion as to value); Morris v. State, 164 Ga.App. 42 (296 S.E.2d 247) (1982) (trial court did not err in permitting the owner of the stolen construction materials to testify as to their value based on his experience in buying building material and shopping for the items that he had purchased).” Accord, Sheppard v. State , 300 Ga.App. 631, 686 S.E.2d 295 (October 27, 2009) (owner of tools had extensive experience “using and purchasing them”); Porter (February 28, 2011), above (owner’s testimony without basis therefore is insufficient). DuCom v. State, 288 Ga.App. 555, 654 S.E.2d 670 (November 26, 2007). Defendant’s conviction for felony theft by receiving reduced to misdemeanor for failure to prove value of stolen software. Cost to upgrade software was not sufficient to establish value of it. “If the State had proven that the upgrade took place before the theft occurred, that would be some evidence of value, if coupled with other evidence, upon which an opinion might have been formed as to the software’s cash market value. Here, however, the State proved only that it was worth $3,700 to C & D to upgrade its software. The true cash market value of the original software, the software actually appropriated, was not established. Therefore, DuCom may not be sentenced for felony theft by taking. Duncan v. State, 278 Ga.App. 703, 708-709(3) (629 S.E.2d 577) (2006).” English v State, 288 Ga.App. 436, 654 S.E.2d 150 (October 25, 2007). Defendant’s conviction for felony theft by receiving reduced to misdemeanor for failure to prove value of items received (a washer and dryer). “The state maintains, however, that their value was proven based upon: (a) English’s testimony that after the washer and dryer his brother had given him were seized, he purchased a new washer and dryer pair for between $550 and $600; (b) English’s testimony that he received the stolen appliances as payment for his legal services, which services he valued at between $600 and $900; and (c) the jury’s knowledge of the value of everyday objects. This was not sufficient. There is no evidence in this case of the fair cash market value of the washer and dryer, no proof as to what the stolen appliances cost, and no testimony from the owner regarding the value of the items based on his experience. The state cites no authority holding that evidence of the type relied upon here (i.e., the price the defendant paid for new appliances, or how much the defendant’s professional services would have been worth had he charged his brother a fee), is sufficient to prove the appliances were worth more than $500. And while the state urges that the jury could determine value where the items are everyday objects of which the jury knows the market value, he cites no authority where that was sufficient absent any evidence of the items’ cost, condition or cash market value. [fn] Here, the state’s evidence as to value is insufficient to support a felony theft by taking conviction. See Waters v. State, 252 Ga.App. 194, 196(1)(b) (555 S.E.2d 859) (2001) (state’s evidence of value insufficient to support felony theft conviction where owner testified she could probably sell saddle for $1500 to $1800, that she bought it new in 1972 for about $2500, and that it escalated in value, since she gave no basis for her opinion of value).” Campbell v. State, 275 Ga.App. 8, 619 S.E.2d 720 (August 8, 2005). Owner’s testimony of cost of stolen Christmas presents was sufficient to establish value. “‘The cost of the property to the owner, although relevant on the question of value, is not the ultimate determinant.’ (Footnote omitted.) Baker v. State, 234 Ga.App. 846, 848 (507 S.E.2d 475) (1998). Rather, the proper measure of value under OCGA § 16-8-12 ‘is the fair cash market value either at the time and place of the theft or at any time during the receipt or concealment of the property.’ (Footnote omitted.) Id. See also Buckley v. State, 270 Ga.App. 493, 494(1) (606 S.E.2d 581) (2004). ‘But it is also true that the cost price, if coupled with other evidence, may be admitted as an element upon which an opinion may be formed as to the item’s value.’ (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Yarber v. State, 144 Ga.App. 781 (242 S.E.2d 372) (1978). And 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