☢ test - Í

prepared by others.” Accord, Raszeja v. State , 298 Ga.App. 713, 680 S.E.2d 690 (July 2, 2009); Mendez v. State , 327 Ga.App. 497, 759 S.E.2d 574 (June 10, 2014) (loss prevention officer could testify to list price of stolen cell phone as shown in “Walmart’s system”). See also Alford (July 7, 2008), and Patterson (April 7, 2005), above. Denson v. State, 240 Ga.App. 207, 523 S.E.2d 62 (September 29, 1999). Defendant’s theft by receiving conviction affirmed, but felony sentence reversed as evidence was insufficient to prove value. “At trial, the owner of the flatbed trailer testified that he purchased the trailer “new” for $850. There was no evidence that the owner was familiar with the value of a flatbed trailer or that particular flatbed trailer. Under these circumstances, the testimony by the owner concerning the purchase price, absent any other evidence of value, is insufficient evidence to establish that the value of the trailer exceeded $500. Baker v. State, 234 Ga.App. 846, 848, 507 S.E.2d 475 (1998); Searcy v. State, 163 Ga.App. 528(2), 295 S.E.2d 227 (1982). However, the evidence supported a finding that the flatbed trailer had some value.” In re: M.C., 239 Ga.App. 767, 521 S.E.2d 900 (August 31, 1999). Evidence supported restitution award based on testimony of actual cost of repair. “When the witness testifies as to what he has actually paid as the monetary amount necessary to make his property whole again, he is not thereby stating his opinion as to value or damage, but is relating a fact based upon his personal knowledge. Van Voltenburg v. State, 138 Ga.App. 628(1), 629, 227 S.E.2d 451 (1976).” Barnes v. State, 239 Ga.App. 495, 521 S.E.2d 425 (July 30, 1999). 1. Evidence supported court’s award of victim restitution for property damage; estimates of cost of repair were properly admitted to support victim’s opinion of value of damage. “In Maddox v. State, 157 Ga.App. 696, 697, 278 S.E.2d 480 (1981), this Court held that ‘[t]he question of value is a matter of opinion, and as to questions of opinion, the witness may swear to his opinion or belief, giving his reasons therefor. One need not be an expert or dealer in the article, but may testify as to value if he has had an opportunity for forming a correct opinion. The owner of property is considered to be qualified to state his opinion as to value. Opinion evidence as to the value of an item, in order to have probative value, must be based upon a foundation that the witness has some knowledge, experience or familiarity with the value of the property or similar property and he must give reasons for the value assessed and also must have had an opportunity for forming a correct opinion.... The victim in this case proved her knowledge and familiarity with the items, and gave reasons for the value she assessed as to each item. It is not objectionable that her opinion as to value might, in some cases, be based on hearsay. Moreover, she did not purport to represent such hearsay as truth or fact, but used it to show the foundation or basis for her opinion. ...’ (Citations and punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied.) See also OCGA §§ 24-9-65; 24-9-66; Vitello v. Stott, 222 Ga.App. 134, 136, 473 S.E.2d 504 (1996); Loggins v. Mitchell, 201 Ga.App. 358, 359(1), 411 S.E.2d 98 (1991); Dixon v. Williams, 177 Ga.App. 702, 704, 340 S.E.2d 286 (1986); B & L Svc. Co. v. Gerson, 167 Ga.App. 679, 681, 307 S.E.2d 262 (1983) (valuations may be based in whole or in part on hearsay, and this would go to its weight, not admissibility); Hoard v. Wiley, 113 Ga.App. 328, 331-332(1), 147 S.E.2d 782 (1966) (value is necessarily a matter of opinion, and such opinion is admissible as long as the witness provides the foundation underlying such opinion). … The State admitted the written estimates in order to establish part of the basis of McCrary's opinion as to such costs, not as evidence going to the truth of the matter asserted. See OCGA § 24-3-1(a); Hurston v. State, 194 Ga.App. 226, 390 S.E.2d 119 (1990).” Distinguishing In re: A.F., 236 Ga.App. 60(1), 510 S.E.2d 910 (1999) (estimates were tendered as proof of cost and not to support owner’s opinion). Compare In re: A.C.R-M. (October 4, 2011), above. 2. Testimony of actual cost paid to repair an item is not hearsay. Brown v. State, 237 Ga.App. 231, 517 S.E.2d 529 (February 10, 1999). Defendant’s conviction for theft by taking affirmed; evidence was sufficient to support finding that stolen aluminum was worth more than $500. “Generally, an opinion of value based solely on the cost of an item is considered to have no probative value. Ragsdale v. State, 170 Ga.App. 448, 449, 317 S.E.2d 288 (1984). However, ‘[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. [Cit.]’ Id. ‘It has been held that direct proof of value is not essential in prosecutions for theft by taking but proof of value may be shown by inference. [Cit.] This is but a restatement of the principle that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to establish value.’ Id. at 450, 317 S.E.2d 288. [Witness] Brock had been an employee of [victim] Shower-Lux for more than eight years at the time of her testimony and had supervised the collections department. And her testimony showed a knowledge of the aluminum products maintained by the company at its warehouse. Based upon this information, the jury was entitled to infer that Brock had at least some working knowledge of the value of the aluminum at issue. Further, Brock’s statement, along with Detective Cartwright’s, that the aluminum was new, not scrap, and the photographs showing the quantity and condition of the aluminum gave the jury additional information upon which to value the aluminum. We find that this