With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". could take the $1,200 purchase price and apply its common sense to determine a value in excess of $300 after only six months of use. Id. at 1229. The court held that there was “no competent evidence ... to prove” the computer’s value at the time of the theft. Id. In this case, there is even less evidence of value than in Smith, because the television was never returned. As in Doane, there was no evidence about the general condition of the television when stolen or the manner in which it was used. This is not a case where because of the nature of the stolen property, “reasonable persons could not doubt that its value exceeded the statutory threshold.” Kitt v. State, 834 So.2d 390, 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (Casanueva, J., concurring); see Jackson v. State, 413 So.2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (<HOLDING>). Because the state failed to establish the

A: holding that jury could properly conclude that a 37foot 1980 hunter sailboat less than one year old had a value greater than 100
B: holding that demands for benefits not less than 10 million dollars contributions greater than 50 million dollars and less than 100 million dollars and attorneys fees not less than 150000000 were ambiguous and did not satisfy the sum certain requirement
C: holding inference is warranted when a 67 year old is replaced by a 59 year old
D: holding that a prior north carolina conviction was for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year if any defendant charged with that crime could receive a sentence of more than one year
A.