Prosser

People v. Prosser

Good Law
157 Cal. App. 4th 682·2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 1989·68 Cal. Rptr. 3d 808·2007 WL 4239464
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 4, 2007G038481California3,831 words

Opinion

Opinion

Moore, J.

Defendant Diana Darlene Prosser, a real estate broker, was convicted of nine counts of first degree residential burglary, two counts of second degree commercial burglary, and one count of receiving stolen property. On appeal, she challenges restitution orders in the respective amounts of $162,120 and $12,600, pertaining to stolen jewelry. Defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to itemize the component parts of each lump-sum figure and in relying on the opinions of the victims in establishing the value of the stolen items.

We disagree and affirm. When an owner of stolen personal property testifies as to its value at a restitution hearing, his or her testimony constitutes prima facie evidence of value. (See People v. Foster (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 939, 946-947 [ 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 ].) The burden then shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that the proffered value is erroneous. (Id. at p. 947.) In this case, the owners of property testified as to the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars in jewelry. Their testimony constituted substantial evidence of value, even though it was unsupported by receipts or appraisals, and even though a detailed description of each…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.