THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State,        Respondent,

v.

Johnnie Settles,        Appellant.

Appeal From Aiken County
James C. Williams, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-334
Submitted March 26, 2004 � Filed May 15, 2003

AFFIRMED

Chief Attorney Daniel T. Stacey, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh and Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Barbara R. Morgan, of Aiken, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:� Johnnie Settles was indicted for possession of a stolen vehicle.� The jury found him guilty of possession of a stolen vehicle with a value of more than one thousand dollars but less than five thousand dollars. [1]

FACTS/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Angus Crawford drove his 1992 Ford pickup truck to his children�s grandmother�s house.� After visiting for about fifteen minutes, the grandmother asked Crawford where was his truck.� Crawford looked outside and discovered it was gone.� He called 911.� While he was giving a statement to the officers, Crawford saw his truck traveling down the road.� The police officers raced after the truck and were able to recover it.� At trial, Crawford testified as to the value of the truck:

Q.����� Would you happen to have an estimate as to the value of that truck?

A.����� It�s in the $5,500 range.� That�s wholesale value on it.

At the close of the State�s evidence, Settles moved for a directed verdict based upon his contention that the State has not established the value of the stolen truck at more than $1000 but less than $5000, the only evidence was that the vehicle was worth $5500.� The judge denied the motion.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

In ruling on motions for directed verdict and JNOV, the trial court is required to view the evidence and the inferences that reasonably can be drawn there from in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motions and to deny the motions where either the evidence yields more than one inference or its inference is in doubt.� Creech v. South Carolina Wildlife & Marine Res. Dep�t, 328 S.C. 24, 29, 491 S.E.2d 571, 573 (1997).� This Court can only reverse the trial court when there is not evidence to support the ruling below.� Id.

LAW/ANALYSIS

Settles appeals, arguing the court erred when it overruled his motion for a directed verdict or in the alternative for a new trial because the indictment required the value of the stolen truck at more than $1000 but less than $5000 and the only evidence presented was that it was worth $5500.

The owner of household goods, wearing apparel and personal effects may state an estimate as to the value of his property.� Nelson v. Coleman Co., 249 S.C. 652, 660, 155 S.E.2d 917, 921 (1967); see Doty v. Parkway Homes Co., 295 S.C. 368, 370, 368 S.E.2d 670, 671 (1988) (�It is proper for an owner to estimate the reasonable value of his household goods in an action to recover damages); Waites v. South Carolina Windstorm & Hail Underwriting Ass�n, 279 S.C. 362, 366, 307 S.E.2d 223, 225 (1983) (�It is the well-settled law of this state that an owner may testify as to the value of damaged real and personal property).

In the case sub judice, the property owner gave an ESTIMATE of the value of the vehicle.� His testimony is only an estimate.� The jury, as the fact-finder in the case, is never required to accept the mathematical estimate testified to by a witness.� The question of the value of the property is always a jury issue.

AFFIRMED.

CURETON, ANDERSON, and HUFF, JJ., concur.