Kennedy Warren v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

TERRY CRABTREE, JUDGE

DIVISION I

KENNEDY WARREN

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR 00-413

OCTOBER 25,2000

APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CR 98-2434]

HONORABLE MARION ANDREW HUMPHREY, CIRCUIT JUDGE

AFFIRMED

On November 19, 1999, the Pulaski County Circuit Court found the appellant, Kennedy Warren, guilty of theft by receiving in violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-36-106(a)(1) (Repl. 1997). The court sentenced appellant to thirty-six months' probation and fined him $300. On appeal, appellant claims that the trial court lacked sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction.

At trial, the State alleged that appellant was in possession of a 1995 Mercury Mystique owned by Jo Ann Lewis, and knew or had good reason to believe that the vehicle was stolen. The State also alleged that the value of the stolen vehicle was greater than $2,500. The only evidence the State offered as to the value of the vehicle, was the price the owner testified she paid for the used vehicle two years earlier.

The test for determining sufficient proof is whether there is substantial evidence,

direct or circumstantial, to support the verdict. Johnson v. State, 337 Ark. 196, 987 S.W.2d 694 (1999). On appeal, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and sustain the conviction if there is any substantial evidence to support it. Tigue v. State, 319 Ark. 147, 889 S.W.2d 760 (1994). Evidence is substantial if it is forceful enough to compel reasonable minds to reach a conclusion and pass beyond suspicion and conjecture. Id. In determining whether there is substantial evidence, we consider only that evidence tending to support the verdict. Johnson, supra. We do not weigh the evidence presented at trial, as that is a matter for the fact finder. Freeman v. State, 331 Ark. 130, 959 S.W.2d 400 (1998). Where, as here, the trial is before the bench, the trial judge sits as fact finder. See State v. Watson, 307 Ark. 333, 820 S.W.2d 59 (1991).

Arkansas Code Annotated Section 5-36-106(a)(1)(Repl. 1997) provides that a person commits theft by receiving when he receives stolen property when he knew or had good reason to know it was stolen. Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 5-36-106(e)(1), theft by receiving is a Class B felony if the value of the property exceeds $2,500. The criminal code defines "value" as the market value of the property at the time of the offense or the replacement cost of the property. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-36-101(11)(A)(i)-(ii).

The State has the burden of proving the value of property, and the preferred method of establishing value is by expert testimony. Coley v. State, 302 Ark. 526, 790 S.W.2d 899 (1990). However, value may be sufficiently established by circumstances which clearly show a value in excess of the statutory requirement. Id. The purchase price may be admissible to establish "value" if it is not too remote in time and bears a reasonable relationto its present value. Williams v. State, 65 Ark. App. 176, 986 S.W.2d 123 (1999). Jo Ann Lewis testified that she purchased the 1995 Mercury in 1996 for $11,000. We believe that the purchase price of the vehicle clearly related to the present value of the vehicle. See Jones v. State, 276 Ark. 116, 632 S.W.2d 414 (1982). We hold that reasonable minds could conclude that the value of the vehicle was greater than $2,500 based upon the owner's testimony.

Affirmed.

Jennings and Roaf, JJ., agree.