may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
State of Minnesota,
Jason Michael Larson,
Filed February 25, 1997
Kanabec County District Court
File No. K095685
John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Rochelle R. Winn, Assistant State Public Defender, 2829 University Avenue S.E., Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55414 (for Appellant)
Considered and decided by Amundson, Presiding Judge, Schumacher, Judge, and Klaphake, Judge.
Appellant Jason Michael Larson challenges his conviction of felony theft in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.52, subd. 2 (1), arguing that the evidence was inadequate to establish that the value of the property taken exceeded $500. We affirm.
Chilton reported the theft to the police and described the stolen items. Within days of the theft, the police learned that one of Chilton's checks had been passed at Wal-Mart. A videotape showed that Steven Lundberg and appellant Jason Michael Larson paid for a Nintendo game with the check.
On November 17, 1995, the police executed a search warrant at Lundberg's trailer, where appellant was staying. The search recovered several pieces of jewelry and a manicure set that had been in Chilton's purse. Chilton identified appellant as the man in the hospital lobby on the date her purse was stolen.
At trial, Chilton testified as to the contents of her stolen purse. She testified that the items included four rings, a silver bracelet, a $125 check, two sets of car keys, cash, high school performance tickets, a manicure set, a coin purse, and a billfold. She testified that the billfold contained her checkbook, driver's license, and a credit card. Chilton also stated that the purse contained a variety of miscellaneous items including personal papers, membership cards, photographs, and medication. She stated the value or approximate value of each item.
After deliberating for less than three hours, the jury returned a verdict finding appellant guilty of theft of property valued at more than $500. This appeal followed.
We must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the state and assume that the jury believed the state's witnesses and disbelieved any contrary evidence. See State v. Jones, 347 N.W.2d 796, 800 (Minn. 1984).
A jury can properly accept an owner's testimony as to the value of her own property. State v. Clipper, 429 N.W.2d 698, 700 (Minn. App. 1988).
Chilton described each item that was stolen and its approximate value. She testified that the value of the property stolen totalled an estimated $575, plus a stolen check, which was worth $125, the amount to be paid under the check. The jury could accept Chilton's testimony as to the value of the property and properly infer that the value of the stolen property exceeded $500.
Additionally, the jury had the chance to see photos of the stolen goods. See State v. Arnold, 292 Minn. 495, 496, 196 N.W.2d 125, 126 (1972) (holding that jury's opportunity to view stolen property along with evidence of cost of stolen property was sufficient to establish value). The jury's opportunity to view photos of the stolen property, coupled with Chilton's testimony as to the property's value, is sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that the property is worth $500 or more.