Major Florida Court Reverses Theft Conviction Over Lack of Evidence of Value

October 9, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense Social Share

Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal rules that someone testifying to the value of property in a theft case must have “personal knowledge” of it, not simply agree with the State’s estimate.

In Florida, the State must prove the value of allegedly stolen property beyond a reasonable doubt for a theft conviction. This blog will discuss a key new ruling by Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal (which covers Tallahassee and Northwest Florida) on the evidence required to establish the value of property in a theft case.

In Florida, grand theft and petit theft are both serious crimes. Grand theft is “felony theft,” and occurs when the value of a stolen item is over $750 (or a specified item under Florida law, such as a firearm). Petit theft is “misdemeanor theft” – and typically occurs when the value of the stolen item is under $750.

For more on the similarities and differences between grand theft and petit theft (penalties, case law, etc.), click here.

A key aspect of a theft case is proving the value of the allegedly stolen or misappropriated item.

For someone to be convicted of theft in Florida, the State must prove all of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

• The defendant knowingly and unlawfully obtained or used (or attempted to obtain or use) the property of another 
• The defendant had the intent at the time to deprive the victim of the property, or misappropriate the property for their own use (or use of another) permanently or temporarily
• The value of the thieved property matches the severity of the charge (e.g. if someone is charged with third-degree felony grand theft, between $750 and $20,000)

If someone is found to have committed theft but the State did not prove its value beyond a reasonable doubt, they must only be found guilty of second-degree misdemeanor petit theft. This can be a significant setback for the State, especially if felony grand theft was charged.

Courts hold the State to a high burden – the State can’t simply “guess” the value of property without firsthand knowledge. There must be actual evidence that the property’s value is what the State claims, for a conviction of anything other than second-degree misdemeanor petit theft. Council v. State, 206 So. 3d 155, 156 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)

That evidence often comes in the form of witness testimony. But not all testimony is created equal. Florida courts sometimes find that the claims of a witness at trial are insufficient proof of property value, especially when the estimate comes from someone with no firsthand knowledge.

The jury is not permitted to “estimate” property value based on “common sense” – it must be independently established at trial. But what kind of testimony regarding property value can (and cannot) support a theft conviction? A major new case from Florida’s 1st DCA provides answers.

Major New Case: Ribbing v. State, Florida’s 1st DCA (October 1, 2025)

In Ribbing, the defendant (Ribbing) was arrested from stealing a laptop and a few other items from Pensacola State College. He was charged with burglary of an occupied structure, possession of burglary tools, and first-degree misdemeanor petit theft (between $100 and $750). Ribbing was convicted on all counts.

Ribbing appealed his convictions to Florida’s 1st DCA. The court affirmed his convictions for the burglary and possession of burglary tools, but reversed Ribbing’s first-degree petit theft conviction (up to 1 year in jail and a $1,000 fine). The 1st DCA instructed the trial court to instead enter a conviction for second-degree misdemeanor petit theft (up to 60 days in jail).

The 1st DCA reasoned that the only evidence concerning the value of the property stolen was testimony from a security guard at Pensacola State College. At trial, the defense objected to the security guard’s testimony – arguing that the security guard lacked personal knowledge as to the value of the laptop and the other items.

The trial court overruled the objection and allowed the security guard to testify that the State’s estimate of the property value (between $100 and $750) was correct. On cross-examination, the security guard conceded he was not in charge of inventory, did not work in the IT department, or in any other department where he’d have personal knowledge of the laptop’s value.

Despite this, the jury convicted Ribbard of first-degree misdemeanor petit theft. But the 1st DCA ruled this could not stand, as the security guard did not have the personal knowledge required to testify as to the value of the stolen property. The 1st DCA wrote:

“When a specific amount is at issue in a theft charge, the State must prove the value of the stolen property beyond a reasonable doubt…”

“To assess the sufficiency of evidence regarding the stolen property’s value, courts apply the following two-part test: First, the court must determine whether the person testifying is competent to testify as to the value of the property. Second, if the person is competent, the court must ascertain whether the evidence adduced at trial is sufficient to prove that the property was worth over [the value alleged in the charge] at the time of the theft.”

Applying this two-step test (outlined in Sellers v. State, 838 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)), the 1st DCA found the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the security guard’s testimony. This is because the security guard at PSC did not have “personal knowledge of the property,” so his testimony could not prove its value. Taylor v. State, 425 So. 2d 1191, 1193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)

The court further held that the trial judge’s error in allowing the security guard’s testimony was not “harmless,” as the State introduced no other evidence of the stolen property’s value at trial. Ribbard’s conviction for first-degree misdemeanor petit theft was based solely on the security guard’s testimony.

The 1st DCA concluded:

“Having determined that the trial court erred in admitting the security guard’s testimony, we must determine whether the error was harmful. It was. Without the security guard’s testimony, the State was unable to prove the value of the goods taken as no other evidence was admitted on the subject.”

“Because the State failed to establish the value of the stolen goods, we reverse and remand with instructions that the trial court vacate the judgment and sentence on the charge of theft ($100 or more, but less than $750), a first-degree misdemeanor, and enter a judgment for petit theft, a second-degree misdemeanor.”

Though Ribbard is unlikely to go down as a landmark opinion, it does provide clarification as to the strength of evidence required to support a property value determination in a theft prosecution. There must be personal knowledge by the person testifying as to the value of allegedly stolen property.

Just because a person is affiliated with a business or lives at a residence where a theft took place, does not mean they have that personal knowledge. In Ribbard, the fact that the testimony came from an employee of the college where the theft occurred, was insufficient to support Ribbard’s conviction on a more serious theft charge.

As this decision reiterates, a failure of the State to prove value does not mean that someone will not be convicted at all of theft. Theft of property of any monetary value is always a crime in Florida (second-degree misdemeanor at a minimum).

However, a conviction for any theft that is more serious than a second-degree misdemeanor (including felony theft) requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of property value. Without a witness that has personal knowledge (and/or other evidence sufficient to prove value beyond a reasonable doubt), only a second-degree misdemeanor petit theft conviction can be supported. 

If someone is arrested and formally charged in Florida in a case involving petit theft, it is critical to find experienced and trusted legal representation as soon as possible. This decision could make the difference in whether or not someone faces a lengthy prison term and hefty fines.

Criminal Defense Attorney in Tallahassee, FL

Don Pumphrey, Jr. is a Former Prosecutor, Former State Police Officer, Lifetime Member of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; for over 25 years as a private defense attorney who is Trusted, Experienced, Aggressive in Criminal Defense as a Trial Attorney, Criminal Lawyer, Criminal Defense Lawyer for the accused in Florida State Courts located in Tallahassee, Florida but handling cases throughout the State of Florida.

Don Pumphrey, Jr. and the Tallahassee criminal defense lawyers at Pumphrey Law have decades of experience fighting drug charges on behalf of clients and winning. Call Pumphrey Law now at (850) 681-7777 to learn more about what we can do for you. Our lawyers will be happy to provide you with a free consultation.

  Social Share