than one owner cannot be aggregated so as to sustain a conviction of grand larceny should the value of property taken from each owner be less than Two Hundred ($200.00) Dollars, and he argues the testimony presented at trial is insufficient to show the value of the property taken from any one of the three roommates equals Two Hundred ($200.00) Dollars. Id. at 301, 312 S.E.2d at 552-53. The Court found the roommates’ testimony regarding the property’s value sufficient: However, we are satisfied the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to permit a jury to conclude that the value of the property taken from one of the roommates did exceed Two Hundred ($200.00) Dollars. Id. at 301 n. 1, 312 S.E.2d at 553 n. 1; see also State v. Humphery, 276 S.C. 42, 44, 274 S.E.2d 918, 918-19 (1981) (<HOLDING>); S.C. State Highway Dep’t v. Grant, 265 S.C.
holding that exclusive possession of recently stolen goods warrants the inference that he stole all of the property for which the defendant is accused of taking provided all the property was stolen at the same time emphasis added holding that the property owners testimony alone placed the value of the stolen property above the amount necessary to constitute grand larceny 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 a defendant may be convicted of theft twice on the basis of intentional possession at one time of stolen property if the property forming the basis of the one conviction was stolen at different times and places from different owners than the property forming the basis of the second conviction 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