Sexton (Karen) v. State ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                   his miscellaneous jewelry. Regarding his watches, the victim provided
    screenshots of similar watches that he obtained from the online auction
    site EBay. Sexton cross-examined the victim as to why he was requesting
    a different amount than he had previously given and why he was
    including new items in his request, including a $72,000 watch he had not
    reported stolen. The victim explained that he did not know the value of
    his watch collection and had given his best estimates under the
    circumstances. The district court ordered Sexton to pay the full amount
    requested.
    We conclude that the restitution award was not based upon
    reliable or accurate evidence. An owner may testify regarding the value of
    his property if he has personal knowledge or expert proof of the value, but
    he may not repeat another person's valuation. Stephans v. State, 
    127 Nev. 262
     P.3d 727, 731 (2011). Here, the victim explained his personal
    knowledge regarding the value of his sunglasses and jewelry, and the
    district court found his testimony to be credible. However, the victim
    admitted that he did not know the value of his watches. The EBay
    information provided to support the restitution request was not reliable
    because many of the watches were merely "similar" to those which had
    been stolen and the amounts requested were based on the "starting bid,"
    "current bid," and "buy it now" prices rather than actual selling prices.
    Moreover, several of the amounts sought and awarded were greater than
    the amounts supported by the EBay valuations. For the watches the
    victim was unable to find comparisons to, he admitted that he arrived at
    the requested values "arbitrarily" based on "rough estimates" of what he
    believed they were worth. We conclude that the district court abused its
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    2
    (0) 1947A    e°
    discretion by imposing restitution in the amount of $112,947. Accordingly,
    we
    ORDER the judgment REVERSED IN PART AND REMAND
    this matter to the district court for a full restitution hearing
    C.J.
    ;dem,               J.                                  , J.
    Pickering
    cc:   Hon. Patrick Flanagan, District Judge
    Washoe County Alternate Public Defender
    Attorney General/Carson City
    Washoe County District Attorney
    Washoe District Court Clerk
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA                                             3
    (0) 1947A
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 65686

Filed Date: 12/11/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021