at 552. The primary issue in that case was whether the larceny of property from different owners at the same time and at the same place constituted one or several larcenies. Id. at 301, 312 S.E.2d at 552-53. However, the Court briefly addressed the method by which the State proved the value of the stolen items: [ The defendant] forcibly entered an apartment occupied by three roommates and took property belonging to each. The property was never recovered. At trial, each roommate estimated the value of the items taken. [The defendant] concedes the aggregate value of the property exceeded Two Hundred ($200.00) Dollars, the statutory minimum to sustain a conviction of grand larceny. However, [the defendant] argues the value of the property taken from mo 32, 216 S.E.2d 758, 759-60 (1975) (<HOLDING>); Seaboard Coast Line, 262 S.C. at 46, 202
holding that a district court was entitled to accept or reject testimony on the basis of the witnesses demeanor and candor or lack thereof and contradictions in the witnesses testimony holding the question of whether an accomplice is credible and the weight to be given to the testimony are issues for the jury to determine holding that the jury is the tribunal to determine the weight to be accorded the testimony of the witnesses and accept or reject the valuations placed thereupon holding that the jury is the judge of the weight and credibility given to witness testimony holding jury is entitled to accept the states version of the facts and reject appellants version or reject any of the witnesses testimony