In re D.J.
| Decision Date | 10 April 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 112414.,112414. |
| Citation | 346 P.3d 1113 (Table) |
| Parties | In the Matter of D.J. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Edward L. Bigus, of Olathe, for appellant.
Steven J. Obermeier, senior deputy district attorney, Stephen M. Howe, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.
Before BUSER, P.J., STANDRIDGE, J., and HEBERT, S.J.
D.J. appeals his juvenile adjudication for the theft of a cell phone. D.J. contends the evidence was insufficient to support the adjudication. We affirm.
On December 2, 2013, D.J. was late for a third-hour physical education class at a middle school in Lenexa. The boy's locker room was adjacent to the gymnasium, and K.S., a student already in the gymnasium, saw D.J. enter the locker room. K.S. saw no other students arrive late that day, and the students were not allowed to reenter the locker room during class.
K.S. had left his street clothing, books, and Samsung cell phone in a backpack which was piled along with other backpacks on a bench in the locker room. After the physical education class, K.S. discovered his backpack was on the floor with its contents strewn about. K.S. noted that his cell phone was missing, and he told Cory Stratham, an administrator at the school, that D.J. might have it.
Stratham called D.J. to the office during the fourth hour period. A video introduced at trial showed that D.J. walked down a hall in the opposite direction from Stratham's office, entered a restroom for 24 seconds, and then walked back down the same hall to the office. Upon questioning by Stratham, D.J. said he did not have the cell phone, but when Stratham asked him to empty his pockets, D.J. removed a Samsung battery from his front pants pockets. D.J. claimed he found the battery on the hallway floor on his way to the office and that he had intended to turn it in. But the video does not show D.J. bending over to retrieve anything from the floor. Of note, D.J. did not empty his back pants pockets, and Stratham did not pat him down or specifically inquire about any contents in his back pockets.
After D.J. left Stratham's office, he went to a second restroom at the other end of the school, far off his route back to the fourth-hour class. D.J. had to pass the restroom mentioned previously to reach this second restroom. D.J. testified on direct examination that in the second restroom he used A video introduced at trial shows D.J. was in the second restroom for only 37 seconds, and he then returned to class.
During the sixth hour period, a student found K.S.'s cell phone in a stall in the second restroom and gave it to the principal. The cell phone was missing its case and battery. The case was never found, but when Stratham inserted the battery that was in D.J.'s possession earlier, it fit and energized the phone.
After considering the evidence, the district judge found “with that many confluences of the events surrounding [D.J.], it's just too much for me to ignore the fact that a pattern that I believe has met the State's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt emerges.” The judge ordered D.J. to serve 6 months' probation. D.J. appeals.
On appeal, D.J. contends the evidence was insufficient to show he was “the person who exerted unauthorized control over the cell phone in the first instance,” or that he “intended to permanently deprive [K.S.] of the permanent use, possession, or ownership of the cell phone.”
The State of Kansas had to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt that the juvenile committed the act or acts charged in the complaint.” K.S.A.2014 Supp. 38–2355. The complaint charged that:
“On or about the 2nd day of December, 2013, said juvenile did at and within the County of Johnson, State of Kansas, unlawfully and willfully obtain or exert unauthorized control over property or services, to-wit: a cell phone, with the intention to permanently deprive the owner, to-wit: [K.S.], of the possession, use or benefit of the owner's property or services of a value less than $1,000.00, a class A non person misdemeanor, in violation of K.S.A. 21–5801(a)(1) and (b)(4).”
Our well known “standard of review on appeal is whether, after review of all the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the appellate court is convinced that a rational factfinder could have found the respondent guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” In re B.M.B., 264 Kan. 417, Syl. ¶ 4, 955 P.2d 1302 (1998).
Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational factfinder could find beyond a reasonable doubt that D.J. took K.S.'s cell phone. The evidence was largely circumstantial, but “circumstantial evidence and the logical inferences therefrom can be sufficient to support a conviction of even the most serious crime .” State v. Herron, 286 Kan. 959, 967, 189 P.3d 1173 (2008). D .J. had an opportunity to steal the phone in the first instance, and he was found with a battery of the sort used in K.S.'s cell phone shortly thereafter. When the cell phone was later recovered, it was missing its...
To continue reading
Request your trial