Present: All the Justices
LEROY ROBINSON, JR.
OPINION BY
v. Record No. 981691 CHIEF JUSTICE HARRY L. CARRICO
June 11, 1999
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
The defendant, Leroy Robinson, Jr., was convicted in a
bench trial in the Circuit Court of Henrico County of grand
larceny for the theft of three sport coats from Hecht’s
Department Store at Regency Square Shopping Center in
Henrico County. After receiving and considering a
probation report, the trial court sentenced the defendant
to serve fifteen years in the penitentiary, with ten years
suspended.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction by order,
and we awarded the defendant this appeal. In a single
assignment of error, the defendant contends that “[t]he
trial court erred in admitting hearsay testimony of store
employees concerning the price listed on store tags to
prove value.”
Grand larceny consists of the theft, not from the
person of another, of goods and chattels valued at $200.00
or more. Code § 18.2-95(ii). This statutorily specified
amount is an essential element of the offense, and the
burden is upon the Commonwealth to establish that element
by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Walls v. Commonwealth,
248 Va. 480, 481, 450 S.E.2d 363, 364 (1994). “Proof that
an article has some value is sufficient to warrant a
conviction of petit larceny, but where the value of the
thing stolen determines the grade of the offense, the value
must be alleged and the Commonwealth must prove the value
to be the statutory amount.” Wright v. Commonwealth, 196
Va. 132, 139, 82 S.E.2d 603, 607 (1954).
The test is market value, and particularly retail
value. See People v. Irrizari, 156 N.E.2d 69, 71 (N.Y.
1959). “[F]air market value is the price property will
bring when offered for sale by a seller who desires but is
not obliged to sell and bought by a buyer under no
necessity of purchasing.” Board of Supervisors v.
Donatelli & Klein, Inc., 228 Va. 620, 628, 325 S.E.2d 342,
345 (1985). And the original purchase price of an item is
admissible as evidence of its current value. Parker v.
Commonwealth, 254 Va. 118, 121, 489 S.E.2d 482, 483 (1997);
Dunn v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 704, 705, 284 S.E.2d 792, 792
(1981).
At trial in the circuit court, Jonathan K. Cessna, a
security agent for Hecht’s who witnessed the theft of the
three sport coats, testified over the defendant’s hearsay
2
objection that the value of the coats totaled $499.97.
Cessna also testified that he knew what the value was
because “that’s what it is on the price tags” and “that’s
what they’re sold for.”
Victoria Ann Burton, a regional director of Hecht’s
who also witnessed the theft, testified over the
defendant’s hearsay objection that the sport coats were
valued at $499.97 and that she knew the value from the
“tickets [that] were attached to the [coats].” Neither the
Commonwealth nor the defendant offered any other evidence
concerning the value of the coats, and, while photographs
of the coats were introduced into evidence, neither the
coats themselves nor the price tags were offered into
evidence.
In overruling the defendant’s hearsay objection to the
testimony of the store employees, the trial judge observed
that the price tag affixed to an item “is the evidence of
the value of the item.” In affirming, the Court of Appeals
stated in its order that “the trial court did not err in
overruling [the defendant’s] hearsay objection.”
On appeal, the defendant points out correctly that
hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the
truth of the matter asserted and that hearsay includes
testimony given by a witness who relates not what he knows
3
personally but what others have told him or what he has
read. See Williams v. Morris, 200 Va. 413, 417, 105 S.E.2d
829, 832 (1958); Cross v. Commonwealth, 195 Va. 62, 74, 77
S.E.2d 447, 453 (1953). The defendant also points out
correctly that hearsay evidence is inadmissible unless it
falls within one of the recognized exceptions to the
hearsay rule, West v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 906, 909,
407 S.E.2d 22, 23 (1991), and that the party attempting to
introduce a hearsay statement has the burden of showing the
statement falls within one of the exceptions, Doe v.
Thomas, 227 Va. 466, 472, 318 S.E.2d 382, 386 (1984).
Here, the defendant says, the stolen items and their
price tags were not offered into evidence, but the store
employees testified “to what the out-of-court price tags
said in order to prove the value of the items.” This, the
defendant maintains, was “hearsay to prove hearsay” or, in
other words, “double hearsay” and inadmissible because not
permitted under any exception to the hearsay rule.
We have not previously considered the question whether
the amount shown on a price tag affixed to an item by a
retailer, or, if the tag is not offered into evidence, the
amount a witness says he observed on the tag, constitutes
inadmissible hearsay when offered to prove the value of the
item in a prosecution for its theft. The Commonwealth
4
states, however, that “many courts have found [that] the
amount on the price tag is a reliable, common-sense source
of evidence in determining the fair market value of the
item to which it is affixed.”
The Commonwealth discusses at some length Boone v.
Stacy, 597 F.Supp. 114 (E.D. Va. 1984), State v. White, 437
A.2d 145 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1981), and Norris v. State, 475
S.W.2d 553 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1971). In Boone, a federal
habeas corpus case applying Virginia law, the petitioner
attacked his conviction of grand larceny in state court for
the theft from a department store of five dresses. In the
criminal trial, the store’s assistant manager testified
that the tagged selling price of the five dresses was
$424.00 and their cost price was $211.00. 597 F.Supp. at
116. The petitioner objected to the testimony concerning
cost on hearsay grounds. In the habeas case, the
petitioner asserted that “the tagged selling price of the
dresses is not the test of market value nor can it be the
basis for testimony, but rather that fair market value must
be established in some other fashion.” Id. at 115.
In dismissing the habeas petition, the district judge
wrote that “[t]he general rule in a shoplifting case is
that uncontradicted evidence that merchandise was displayed
in a retail establishment for regular sale at a marked
5
price representing its retail price can serve as sufficient
circumstantial evidence of fair market value.” Id. at 117.
The judge also wrote that “[c]ourts have stated that the
tagged retail price serves as ‘competent evidence,’” id.
(quoting Calbert v. State, 670 P.2d 576, 576 (Nev. 1983)),
“or, alternatively, that, though hearsay, the price tag is
‘a document prepared or entry made in the regular course of
business,’” id. at 118 (quoting Lauder v. State, 195 A.2d
610, 611 (Md. 1963)).
In White, the trial court admitted into evidence over
a hearsay objection price tags affixed to four items of
stolen clothing as proof of the items’ value. Affirming
this action, the appellate court stated:
The defendant’s arguments against the
admissibility of these tags are without merit. We are
unpersuaded by the argument that such tags are
technically excludable as hearsay unless qualified
under the business records exception . . . since the
inherent unreliability of hearsay is not present in
this type of evidence. Rather, the fact that price
tags generally reflect market value may be judicially
noted, since this fact is both commonly known and
capable of ready demonstration.
437 A.2d at 148.
In Norris, the accused was convicted of shoplifting a
television set valued at more than $100.00. As in the
present case, the only proof of the value of the set
consisted of the testimony of two store security officers
6
“to the fact that the set carried a price tag of $109.95,
and that that was its price (value).” 475 S.W.2d at 555.
The appellate court affirmed the conviction, stating as
follows: “That the television set was displayed for sale
over a period of time with a certain price tag upon it is
not hearsay, but fact; and is evidence that the tag
reflected its retail value.” Id. at 555-56. The court
also indicated that the testimony would be admissible under
the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Id. at
556.
The Commonwealth also cites Armstrong v. State, 516
So.2d 806, 809 (Ala. Crim. App. 1987) (value of stolen item
established when box containing stolen item is marked with
price tag and admitted into evidence); Watson v. State, 415
So.2d 128, 128 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982) (testimony of
department store employee concerning contents of price tag
not hearsay); Kowalczk v. State, 394 S.E.2d 594, 595 (Ga.
App. 1990) (testimony of store manager as to actual retail
price of stolen merchandise sufficient to establish value);
People v. Drake, 475 N.E.2d 1018, 1020-22 (Ill. App. 2d.
1985) (information shown on stickers attached to stolen
items admissible and competent evidence); Lauder, 195 A.2d
at 611 (price tags admissible where tag is attached at time
of arrest and similar tags are attached to other articles
7
throughout store); Lacy v. State, 432 So. 2d 1205, 1206
(Miss. 1983) (adopting judicial notice rationale of State
v. White, supra, in holding price tags not inadmissible on
hearsay grounds when tags attached at time of theft, no
reduced price sale in progress at store, and witness had
training in pricing); Calbert, 670 P.2d at 576 (price tags
attached to goods at time of theft competent evidence of
value); City of Albuquerque v. Martinez, 604 P.2d 842, 843
(N.M. App. 1979) (price tag proper source from which to
infer precise value of stolen item); State v. Rainwater,
876 P.2d 979, 982 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994) (adopting judicial
notice rationale of State v. White, supra, in holding price
tags admissible when case involves retail store commonly
known to sell goods for non-negotiable price shown on tag).
The defendant cites some of the same cases and, in
addition, State v. Odom, 393 S.E.2d 146, 151 (N.C. App.
1990) (security employee’s experience qualified price tags
as records kept in regular course of business and knowledge
gained from tags themselves did not bar their admission as
evidence of value), and State v. Kleist, 895 P.2d 398, 400
(Wash. 1995) (admission of price tags as evidence
necessitated foundation testimony which was supplied by
store’s security guard and sales manager).
8
In analyzing these cases, it is interesting to note
that not one holds that price tags or testimony relating to
price tags is inadmissible per se. 1 All hold price-tag
evidence admissible, but give varying reasons, or no reason
at all, for admissibility. Some say the evidence is
admissible because what is asserted is not hearsay, others
because the evidence qualifies under the business records
exception to the hearsay rule, some pursuant to the
judicial notice rationale, and some when foundation
testimony is provided.
Apparent throughout, however, is a reluctance on the
part of the courts involved to say that something is
hearsay or, if it is, that an exception to the hearsay rule
should be recognized to make it admissible. We are of
opinion that what we are dealing with in this case is
1
In a case not cited by the parties, the Supreme Court
of Colorado held that price tags constituted hearsay and
were inadmissible because no foundation testimony was
presented to establish the value of the stolen items or to
show that the price tags were accurate and prepared in the
ordinary course of business so as to bring them within the
business records exception to the hearsay rule. People v.
Codding, 551 P.2d 192, 193 (Colo. 1976). The Colorado
legislature then enacted a statute providing that price
tags shall be prima facie evidence of value when theft
occurs from a store and that, in all cases where theft
occurs, hearsay evidence shall not be excluded in
determining the value of the thing involved. Colo. Rev.
Stat. § 18-4-414 (1985).
9
hearsay 2 , that it is not admissible under any presently
recognized exception to the hearsay rule, 3 and that we
should consider recognizing an exception to the rule to
permit its admission.
What is involved here is a simple, uncomplicated
matter. Shoplifting is something that occurs thousands and
thousands of times throughout this country every day. It
is common knowledge that department and other stores
regularly affix price tags to items of merchandise and that
the tagged price is what a purchaser must pay to acquire an
item, without the opportunity to negotiate a reduced price
or to question how the tagged price was reached.
Under these circumstances, “the inherent unreliability
of hearsay is not present.” State v. White, 437 A.2d at
148. Therefore, it would be unreasonable and unnecessary
to require that in each case a merchant must send to court
not only a security person but also other personnel to
2
Cessna’s statement that “that’s what they’re sold
for,” if based on his personal experience in the store
rather than a mere reading of the price tags, would not be
hearsay, but there is nothing in the record indicating that
the statement was based on such personal experience.
3
The evidence involved in this case does not fall
within the business records exception to the hearsay rule
because no foundation was laid to establish “the regularity
of . . . [the] preparation” of the price tags or the
store’s reliance upon them “in the transaction of [its]
business.” Automatic Sprinkler Corp. v. Coley & Petersen,
Inc., 219 Va. 781, 793, 250 S.E.2d 765, 773 (1979).
10
establish the reliability of the information shown on a
price tag affixed to an item that has been stolen.
Rather, we think the common-sense approach to the
problem is to recognize an exception to the hearsay rule in
shoplifting cases permitting the admission into evidence of
price tags regularly affixed to items of personalty offered
for sale or, in substitution, testimony concerning the
amounts shown on such tags when, as in this case, there is
no objection to such testimony on best evidence grounds.
While such evidence, when admitted, would suffice to make
out a prima facie case of an item’s value, the accused
would retain full opportunity to cross-examine adverse
witnesses and to present rebutting evidence on the issue of
value. See State v. White, 437 A.2d at 148. For example,
if a store conducts a sale but computes the reduced price
at the cash register rather than marking the change on the
price tag, an accused would be entitled to rely upon the
reduced price as evidence of the item’s value.
The evidence in the present case falls within the
exception we now recognize to the hearsay rule.
Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the Court of
Appeals.
Affirmed.
11
JUSTICE KEENAN, with whom JUSTICE HASSELL joins,
dissenting.
JUSTICE KEENAN, with whom JUSTICE HASSELL joins,
dissenting.
The majority effectively shifts the burden of proving
the value of the merchandise at issue in a grand larceny
shoplifting prosecution from the Commonwealth to a criminal
defendant. In declaring that the "tagged price" of
merchandise constitutes prima facie proof of its value, the
majority essentially requires a criminal defendant to prove
his innocence by disproving unreliable evidence of value.
The majority apparently has not attended a "red dot"
sale at Hecht's Department Store, the retail merchant
involved in this appeal. It is common knowledge that, at
these and other comparable sales, price tags often bear
three or four different price markings. Under such
circumstances, price tags are, if anything, an inherently
untrustworthy form of evidence.
Without acknowledging this problem, the majority
simply invites a criminal defendant, after hearsay "price
tag" evidence is admitted, to cross-examine the
prosecution's witness or to present his own witnesses in an
attempt to establish the true retail value of the
merchandise. The majority also leaves to a defendant the
burden of proving whether a further reduced price would
12
have been computed at the cash register. A holding that
places these evidentiary burdens on a criminal defendant
violates the principle cited by the majority that, in grand
larceny prosecutions, the Commonwealth bears the burden of
proving the value of merchandise taken beyond a reasonable
doubt. See Walls v. Commonwealth, 248 Va. 480, 481, 450
S.E.2d 363, 364 (1994); Wright v. Commonwealth, 196 Va.
132, 139, 82 S.E.2d 603, 607 (1954).
Without identifying any necessity for its new
exception to the hearsay rule, the majority chiefly relies
on the fact that other jurisdictions have created such an
exception. I respectfully submit that such a rationale is
without substance and should not be the controlling basis
for any decision of this Court. The business records
exception to the hearsay rule is alive and well in
Virginia. See, e.g., Kettler & Scott, Inc. v. Earth
Technology Companies, Inc., 248 Va. 450, 457, 449 S.E.2d
782, 785-86 (1994); Marefield Meadows, Inc. v. Lorenz, 245
Va. 255, 264, 427 S.E.2d 363, 368 (1993); Frye v.
Commonwealth, 231 Va. 370, 387, 345 S.E.2d 267, 279-80
(1986). By proper use of that exception, the Commonwealth
can present evidence of value in grand larceny shoplifting
cases.
13
Thus, I would reject the creation of a new exception
to the hearsay rule and hold that the hearsay evidence in
question was improperly admitted. Since the defendant has
not assigned error to the sufficiency of the evidence in
support of his conviction, I would remand the case for a
new trial on the indictment should the Commonwealth be so
advised.
14