State v. Mays

Statutory analysis of ORS 164.115(1) indicates that the legislature intended that when determining the value of the stolen item, market value would be the default method and replacement value would be the fallback method. To rely on replacement value as the fallback, the state must present evidence that is not possible to ascertain market value to a reasonable certainty by an investigation that is reasonable under the circumstances.

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for ORS 164.055, first-degree theft, and ORS 164.045, second-degree theft. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s reliance on the replacement value of certain items that were stolen by the defendant, because the state failed to prove that the market value of those items could not be reasonably ascertained. On appeal, Defendant argued the trial court erroneously relied on the replacement value of several of these items, as the state failed first to present legally sufficient evidence that their market value could not be reasonably ascertained. In response, the State argued that they established that the marketplace value of the items could not be determined, as a reliable market does not exist. Statutory analysis of ORS 164.115(1) indicates that the legislature intended that when determining the value of the stolen item, the market value would be the default method and replacement value would be the fallback method. The state must present evidence that is not possible to ascertain market value to a reasonable certainty by an investigation that is reasonable under the circumstances to rely on replacement value as the fallback. The Court held that when a marketplace exists for certain property but is unreliable, then that may be sufficient evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact can find that the market value cannot be reasonably ascertained. The Court also found there was sufficient evidence that the value of the stolen property exceeded the requisite monetary thresholds to support both convictions. Affirmed.