State v. Karafelis

1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 119,762


IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,
Appellee,

v.

EDWARD WILLIAM KARAFELIS,
Appellant.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Atchison District Court; ROBERT J. BEDNAR, judge. Opinion filed June 28, 2019.
Affirmed.

Rick Kittel, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.

Sherri L. Becker, county attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.

Before SCHROEDER, P.J., GREEN and POWELL, JJ.

PER CURIAM: Following a jury trial, Edward Karafelis was convicted of felony
theft of property with a value of at least $1,500 but less than $25,000. On appeal,
Karafelis argues that the evidence presented at trial failed to prove that the value of the
stolen batteries was $1,500 or greater and that the State did not produce any evidence
about the fair market value of the stolen batteries. We conclude that when viewed in the
light most favorable to the State, a rational fact-finder could have found that sufficient
evidence existed that the value of the stolen batteries was at least $1,500 but less than
$25,000. Accordingly, we affirm.
2


James Tull owned a company that performed excavation, demolition, and paving
services. Tull owned large pieces of equipment for this business including an excavator,
backhoe, grader, end loader, trucks, and demolition and paving equipment. Tull had hired
Karafelis as an employee, and Tull gave Karafelis keys and permission to access Tull's
property through his employment.

In 2017, Tull found around 16 to 18 batteries had been cut, removed, and stolen
from various pieces of his equipment. There is a discrepancy on appeal about how many
batteries were taken. The State claims 18 batteries were taken, and Karafelis claims 16
batteries were taken. Regardless, Tull told police officers that 16 batteries were stolen.
Detective Larry Myer from the Atchison County Sheriff's Office counted 16 stolen
batteries, and the complaint charged Karafelis with the theft of 16 batteries. Karafelis
admitted to Myer that he had stolen 9 to 12 of the batteries. Karafelis also admitted to
selling the batteries for scrap. The State presented evidence at trial that proved the scrap
company paid Karafelis $423.04 for the batteries he sold for scrap.

At trial, Tull testified that batteries for heavy equipment are larger, heavier, and
more expensive than a standard car battery. Each piece of equipment requires two
batteries to operate. Tull testified that eight of the batteries were less than one-year old
and that all the batteries were in good, working condition. Tull also testified that the
batteries cost, on average, $160 per battery, except for the batteries to the loader which
cost $200 per battery. To replace the batteries, Tull testified that he paid "pretty close to
$1,600" for only the cost of the batteries.

The jury was given an instruction specifically about the valuation of the batteries.
The instruction stated:

3

"The State has the burden of proof as to the value of the property which the
defendant allegedly obtained unauthorized control.
"The State claims the value of the property was at least $1500.00 but less than
$25,000.00.
"It is for you to determine the amount and enter it on the verdict form furnished."

The jury deliberated and later presented three questions for the district court, all
related to determining the value of the stolen batteries. First, the jury asked, "Are we
considering labor and restoration in the overall cost?" Second, "Are we considering the
cost of damaged cables?" Third, "Are we considering damages to the property or only to
the value of what was taken from the property?" Upon agreement from the parties, the
district court answered the first two questions as "not applicable" and answered question
three as "only the value of the property taken is considered."

The jury found Karafelis guilty of theft with the value of the property at least
$1,500 but less than $25,000. Karafelis filed this timely appeal.

Was There Sufficient Evidence Presented at Trial for the Jury to Find Karafelis Guilty of
Felony Theft?

On appeal, Karafelis argues that the evidence presented at trial failed to prove that
the value of the batteries taken was over $1,500. Karafelis argues the State did not
produce any evidence regarding the fair market value of the batteries stolen. The State
argues the jury heard sufficient testimony on the value of the batteries mainly through the
testimony of the victim, Tull.

The standard of review of sufficiency of the evidence is well settled:

"'When sufficiency of the evidence is challenged in a criminal case, the
standard of review is whether, after reviewing all the evidence in a light most
4

favorable to the prosecution, the appellate court is convinced a rational factfinder
could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellate
courts do not reweigh evidence, resolve evidentiary conflicts, or make witness
credibility determinations.' [Citation omitted.]" State v. Chandler, 307 Kan. 657,
668, 414 P.3d 713 (2018).

It is only in rare cases when the testimony is so incredible that no reasonable fact-finder
could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt that a guilty verdict will be reversed. State v.
Matlock, 233 Kan. 1, 5-6, 660 P.2d 945 (1983).

There was sufficient evidence for the jury to determine the value of the stolen
batteries was at least $1,500.

Kansas courts have held that the value of property is determined at the fair market
value of the items taken at the time of the theft. State v. Owens, 248 Kan. 273, 285, 807
P.2d 101 (1991). An owner of stolen property is presumed to know its value and,
therefore, can give competent evidence as to its value. State v. Moss, 221 Kan. 47, 49,
557 P.2d 1292 (1976).

Karafelis argues that the State did not produce any evidence that would determine
the fair market value of the batteries. Karafelis claims the only evidence that could be
considered fair market value is the amount of money Karafelis received for selling the
batteries to the scrap company—$423.04. Karafelis argues that the "only other evidence
on this point by the State was the cost paid by Tull to buy replacement batteries."
Karafelis does not refer to any dollar amount or record citation for this assertion.

This argument is not persuasive. Melanie Callen, the office manager of the scrap
company, provided testimony that the scrap value of any item is typically much less than
the actual value. Thus, the jury heard testimony that the scrap value is not the fair market
value.
5


The State also presented testimony by Tull that the batteries were more expensive
than a standard car battery and it would cost around $160 to replace each one. Kansas
courts have found that as the owner of the property, Tull is presumed to know the value
of his own property and, therefore, Tull can give competent evidence as to the value of
the stolen batteries. Moss, 221 Kan. at 49. This assumption was also satisfied when Tull
testified that the batteries for the end loader cost more than the other batteries—costing
$200 per battery rather than $160 per battery.

Based on the testimony of Tull, the State presented the jury with multiple figures
for determining whether the value of the stolen batteries was at least $1,500. The record
also provides that the jury thought extensively about this question when they asked the
court three questions related to determining the value. While the jury never heard
testimony specifically about the fair market value of each individual battery, it heard
testimony that nine of the batteries were less than one-year old and that all the batteries
were in good condition.

Presumably, the jury could have determined that at $160 per battery, the value of
the 16 batteries would be $2,560. If the jury considered the two batteries for the end
loader costing $200 per battery, then it could have determined the value to be $2,640,
which is in excess of $1,000 more than the minimum required of $1,500. The State also
presented more evidence supporting the conviction when Tull testified that he thought he
paid $1,600 to replace all the batteries that were stolen.

The State thus presented the jury with evidence that at a minimum, the value of the
batteries was $1,600. The State also presented evidence that the value of the batteries
could be up to $2,640. And there was testimony that the scrap value of the batteries is
much less than the actual value.

6

Karafelis makes another argument related to the amount of restitution awarded.
The court ordered Karafelis to pay $1,500 in restitution. Karafelis argues: "The restitution
amount in this case was $1,500.00 for the cost of new replacement batteries. Therefore,
the fair market value for the batteries actually taken must have been less than $1,500.00
because the batteries that were actually stolen were not new."

This argument is not persuasive and is irrelevant. The jury did not have this
restitution determination when it was considering whether the value of the stolen batteries
was at least $1,500. The jury could not have considered the restitution amount as part of
the sufficient evidence of value of the batteries because the amount had not yet been
decided. Nor is there any evidence in the record that the $1,500 award was the actual cost
of replacing the batteries. According to the transcript from the sentencing proceedings,
the parties agreed upon the $1,500 figure and no evidence supports Karafelis' position
that this should be determinative of the actual value of the stolen batteries.

When viewed in the light most favorable to the State, a rational fact-finder could
have found that there was sufficient evidence that the value of the stolen batteries was at
least $1,500 but less than $25,000. Thus, we conclude that Karafelis is guilty of felony
theft beyond a reasonable doubt.

Affirmed.