Molter v. State, 892 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

Cases | Molter v. State, 892 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004) | 2018

The defendant was ordered by the trial court to make restitution to victims for stolen items in two separate cases. On appeal, the defendant challenged these orders of restitution. In the first case, the court of appeals held that, even though the defendant waived his hearsay objection, the court’s order of restitution was not supported by competent evidence because only the prosecutor’s unsworn, hearsay statements were offered as evidence of the value of the stolen items. The restitution order in this case was reversed and the case remanded for a new restitution hearing. In the second case, the victims offered two lists, itemizing what was stolen and assigning value to many of them. The defendant argued that he did not steal some of the items on the list and furthermore, that the victims’ valuation was unreliable and fair market value should be used. The court of appeals held that for the items identified and valued, “the court was within its discretion to reject fair market valuation of the stolen personal property.” The court reversed the order of restitution and remanded for the entry of an amended order requiring the defendant to pay restitution in the amount of $8,246, an amount reflecting the value of items the State proved.