Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

CHARLES CALBERT, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, RESPONDENT.

OPINION

Per Curiam:

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction of one count of grand larceny in violation of NRS 205.220. The charge was based on the theft of goods from a retail department store. Appellant contends that the evidence presented at trial concerning the value of the stolen goods was not sufficient to sustain his conviction. We disagree.

NRS 205.220 provides in part that:

Every person who feloniously steals, takes and carries away . . . the personal goods or property of another of the value of $100 or more . . . is guilty of grand larceny. . . .

The state primarily relied on evidence of price tags attached to the goods at the time of the theft. The price tags, which indicated that the goods had a fair market value of more than $100, were competent evidence of the value of the stolen goods for purposes of establishing grand larceny. See Lauder v. State, 195 A.2d 610 (Md. 1963); City of Albuquerque v. Martinez, 604 P.2d 842 (N.M.Ct.App. 1979); Norris v. State, 475 S.W.2d 553 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1971). See generally Mercado v. Sheriff, 94 Nev. 771, 587 P.2d 1327 (1978).

Appellant's other contention has been considered and is without merit.

Affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

CALBERT v. STATE
(Oct 19, 1983)