State v. Islam

Awarding restitution for stolen property is adequate when the theft occurs in retail space.

On appeal, defendant renews his contention that the trial court erred by imposing the retail value of the stolen property as restitution. Defendant pleaded no contest to theft in the second degree, for alleged theft of jeans from a Macy's department store, and stipulated to pay restitution. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred by awarding restitution based on the retail value of the stolen jeans, rather than their wholesale value. There are three principles under the “recoverable in a civil action” construct. First, the analogous civil action for theft is conversion. Second, the measure of conversion damages and, hence, for restitution for theft is market value. And, third, the relevant market is determined by reference to the time and place of the theft. The court concludes that the jeans were stolen from shelves in retail space, thus the market value of the stolen goods was their retail value. Therefore, the court concluded that restitutions was a valid award. Affirmed.