Sartin v. State
1969 Wisc. LEXIS 894, 44 Wis. 2d 138, 170 N.W.2d 727 (1969)
Rule of Law:
In a theft prosecution, intent to permanently deprive an owner of property may be inferred from actions creating an unreasonable risk of permanent loss, such as abandoning a damaged stolen vehicle; furthermore, the value of stolen property for penalty purposes is the lesser of its market value or the victim's replacement cost, often determined by the competitive market price a prudent buyer would pay a prudent seller, which for personal use items may be the retail price if wholesale is not accessible to the victim.
Facts:
- The defendants took Harlan’s car without his consent after it had been parked at his place of employment without the keys in the ignition.
- After driving Harlan's car for a short while, it was damaged to the extent that it became undrivable.
- The defendants abandoned Harlan's damaged car on the shoulder of Highway 51.
- When the police attempted to apprehend the defendants, they refused to stop when ordered.
- It was necessary for a shot to be fired into the air to stop the defendants.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendants were charged and convicted of theft under sec. 943.20 (1)(a), Stats., in a trial court.
- Defendants subsequently filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a motion for a new trial, arguing the verdict was contrary to the evidence.
- The trial court denied the defendants' motions.
- The defendants appealed their convictions to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does evidence of taking a car without consent, driving it until damaged, and then abandoning it, sufficiently prove intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property for a theft conviction? 2. Is the market value of a stolen car for determining felony classification under a theft statute the wholesale market price, when the victim cannot replace the car for personal use at that price, or is it determined by considering the victim's replacement cost and a competitive market price between a prudent buyer and seller?
Opinions:
Majority - Wilkie, J.
1. Yes, the evidence was sufficient to prove the defendants' intent to permanently deprive Harlan of his automobile. The court affirmed that intent is a state of mind that can be inferred from a person's acts, conduct, and circumstances, especially when direct evidence is lacking, as established in precedents like Strait v. State. The act of taking Harlan's car without consent, driving it until it was damaged and undrivable, and then abandoning it on a highway, clearly indicated the intentional creation of an unreasonable risk of permanent loss to the owner, which is equivalent to the intent to permanently deprive. The court rejected the defendants' argument that the short distance or time driven negated intent, explaining that abandonment occurred because the car was damaged. 2. Yes, the jury was correct in determining the value of the car on the date of the taking was $125. The court held that Wisconsin's theft statute (sec. 943.20 (2)(c), Stats.) explicitly defines "value" as the lesser of the market value at the time of theft or the cost to the victim of replacing the property. This statutory scheme is not ambiguous. While defendants argued for a wholesale market valuation, the court reasoned that if the victim, Harlan, could not replace his vehicle for personal use in the wholesale market, then his replacement cost would reflect the retail price. The market value is the competitive price between a prudent seller and a prudent buyer, which sets the outer limits within which the market value can be found and is not strictly wholesale or retail. Expert testimony at trial supported the $125 valuation, which exceeded the $100 threshold for felony theft.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the evidentiary standards for proving intent in theft by establishing that abandonment of a damaged stolen vehicle, creating an 'unreasonable risk of permanent loss,' is sufficient for a jury to infer intent to permanently deprive. It also provides crucial guidance on the interpretation of 'value' in theft statutes, emphasizing the victim's replacement cost and a broader 'competitive market price' over strict wholesale valuation, thereby ensuring penalties accurately reflect the actual harm to the victim. This decision helps courts consistently apply theft statutes, especially in situations where direct proof of intent is absent or property value is disputed based on different market levels.
