California law does not treat a store’s price tag or a victim’s estimate as the automatic value of stolen property. For value-based grand theft, the legal test is the property’s reasonable and fair market value at the time and place of the theft, and the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the value makes it grand theft. That number can separate petty theft from grand theft and can be challenged with evidence. Some property, including firearms, is grand theft regardless of value.

Penal Code section 484(a) sets “the reasonable and fair market value” as the test for valuing stolen property. Stolen services are valued differently, by the contract price, or by the reasonable and going wage if there was no contract.

CALCRIM No. 1801, the jury instruction that separates grand theft from petty theft, ordinarily defines fair market value as the highest price the property would reasonably have sold for in the open market at the time and general location of the theft. If urgency to buy or sell could distort that price, the instruction instead uses the price a reasonable willing buyer and seller would agree on if neither had an urgent need to buy or sell. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the theft was grand theft rather than a lesser crime. In practice, that means a price tag, a receipt, or a store’s own estimate is evidence to weigh against this definition, not the legal answer by itself.

What actually moves the number

Because the test looks at what the property would really sell for, evidence can push the value below, or above, what a price tag shows:

  • The original price tag, receipt, or retail listing, as a starting point rather than a final answer.
  • Records of markdowns, clearance pricing, or the item’s actual sale history.
  • The item’s condition at the time of the theft, including damage, age, or missing parts.
  • Testimony or records about what comparable items were actually selling for at that time and place.

Building this case means gathering and presenting evidence that already exists, not creating or altering any record.

This matters because several theft crimes turn on whether value sits at or under $950. Penal Code section 490.2 makes theft of property worth $950 or less petty theft, a misdemeanor, subject to certain prior-conviction exceptions and excluding firearm theft. The same $950 line applies to a shoplifting charge under Penal Code section 459.5, and to a charge of receiving stolen property under Penal Code section 496(a). Theft valued over $950 is generally grand theft under Penal Code section 487.

Restitution uses a different measurement

If a case ends in a conviction, restitution to the victim is not calculated the same way as the value that graded the charge. Penal Code section 1202.4(f)(3)(A) sets restitution at the replacement cost of like property, or the actual cost of repair when the property can be repaired. A replacement-cost figure used for restitution is a separate number from fair market value, and it is not automatically the figure that decided the original charge.

Special categories with their own rules

A few kinds of property are not graded like ordinary merchandise:

  • Firearms. Section 487(d)(2) makes theft of a firearm grand theft, and section 490.2(c) keeps the $950 petty theft rule from applying, so value does not lower the charge.
  • Vehicles. CALCRIM No. 1801 treats an automobile as grand theft only if its value exceeds $950.
  • Farm crops and aquacultural products. Section 487(b) still lists a $250 line for certain farm crops and for aquacultural products taken from a commercial or research operation, and it lets crop value be shown by wholesale price. After Proposition 47, though, CALCRIM No. 1801 instructs that these thefts are grand theft only when the property is worth more than $950; wholesale value is one way to prove that.
  • Employee takings. Under section 487(b)(3), an employee’s takings from an employer can be added together over any 12 consecutive months to reach the grand theft line.

Aggregation, briefly

Separately from any single item’s value, the law sometimes combines multiple takings into one count. Penal Code section 487(e) allows aggregation of distinct but related acts motivated by one intention, impulse, and plan, and Penal Code section 490.3, added by Proposition 36, separately allows the value from one or more acts of theft or shoplifting to be combined into a single count. How that applies to a specific case is its own question.

Talk to a lawyer about the value in your case

If the value assigned to property in your case is pushing a charge toward grand theft, or you are unsure whether the number police or a store used will hold up, the Law Offices of David S. Chesley’s theft and fraud defense team can review the evidence with you. Call (800) 755-5174.