dissent addresses the meaning of the words “retail value,” the deprivation of which makes up the crime of shoplifting. I believe that proof of the price at which a retail merchant offers an item for sale does in fact establish value, an essential statutory element of the crime of shoplifting. The statute speaks extensively of price tags and criminalizes conduct involving altered price tags. Thus, establishing the price, via a price tag, at which an item is offered for sale at the time of its theft or deprivation is sufficient to prove the element of value. See, Nix v. State, 604 So. 2d 920, 922 (Fla. App. 1992) (trial judge is authorized to select either replacement cost or “selling price” as fair market value of goods stolen); State v. Carroll, 186 Neb. 148, 181 N.W.2d 436 (1970) (<HOLDING>); State v. King, 164 N.J. Super. 330, 336 n.1,
holding that fair and reasonable market value of stolen property may be established in larceny prosecution by evidence of wholesale or retail values or both and if both are sufficient to establish grand larceny then it is immaterial whether computation of market value is by reference to wholesale or retail prices holding that possession of stolen property is proper circumstance to consider in determining whether there was evidence tending to connect defendant with crimes of burglary and grand larceny holding that damage to building and personal property as a result of fire negligently caused by defendant was to be measured by reasonable cash market value of the property at the time it was destroyed by the fire or if it was not totally destroyed by the diminution in its fair market value before and after the fire holding that the property owners testimony alone placed the value of the stolen property above the amount necessary to constitute grand larceny holding larceny conviction was a violation of bar against double jeopardy where defendant was acquitted of larceny at first trial but at retrial was convicted of larceny and burglary