State v. Kennerson
702 So.2d 860, 1997 WL 619270 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An owner of a stolen item is permitted to testify as to its value to establish a necessary element of a theft charge, and this testimony is generally sufficient without the owner being qualified as an expert.
Facts:
- Edward Kennerson, along with several co-defendants, committed a series of thefts of automobiles and bicycles from various owners.
- Delores Gremillion's Chevrolet Caprice was stolen from her carport and recovered two weeks later with a broken steering post.
- John Wayne Guillot's two bicycles were stolen; he testified one was purchased for $79.00.
- Cynthia Dupuy's two bicycles were stolen; she testified they were purchased for approximately $130.00 and $115.00-$120.00, respectively.
- Maria Clark's two bicycles were stolen; she testified they were purchased for approximately $120.00 and $140.00.
- Michelle Dixon testified that two of her bicycles were stolen.
- A co-defendant, Christopher Gains, testified that Kennerson drove the vehicle used during the thefts of the Guillot, Dupuy, and Clark bicycles, but did not recall the Dixon theft.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Louisiana charged Edward Kennerson via seven bills of information with multiple counts of theft and simple burglary.
- Kennerson entered pleas of not guilty to all charges.
- The charges were consolidated for a single jury trial in a Louisiana district court (trial court).
- Prior to the verdict, the State dismissed two of the counts.
- The jury found Kennerson guilty on all remaining counts.
- Following the conviction, the trial court adjudicated Kennerson a habitual offender (third offense) and imposed sentences.
- Kennerson appealed his conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit, which is the intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an owner's testimony regarding the purchase price of a stolen item, without being qualified as an expert, constitute sufficient evidence to prove the item's value for the purposes of a statutory theft charge?
Opinions:
Majority - Yelverton, Judge
Yes, an owner's testimony regarding the purchase price of a stolen item is generally admissible and sufficient to prove its value. The court reasoned that unless it is shown an owner lacks knowledge of the value of their property, their testimony is admissible, with its weight being left to the jury. It is not necessary that an owner be qualified as an expert. Applying this rule, the court found the owner testimony for the bicycles stolen from Cynthia Dupuy and Maria Clark was sufficient to prove their value exceeded the $100 statutory threshold. However, for the bicycle stolen from John Wayne Guillot, the evidence only proved a value of $79.00, which was insufficient for the charged offense but sufficient for the lesser included offense of theft of a thing valued at less than $100.00. The court also held that evidence was insufficient to connect Kennerson to the theft of Clay Dixon's bicycles and reversed that specific conviction.
Analysis:
This case reaffirms the established legal principle that owner testimony is a practical and sufficient method for proving value in theft prosecutions, alleviating the state's burden of producing expert testimony for common items. The decision clarifies that while the testimony is admissible, it must still be specific enough to meet the statutory value thresholds for a given degree of theft. The court's willingness to modify a conviction to a lesser included offense based on the precise value proven demonstrates that appellate courts will carefully scrutinize the evidence supporting each element of a charged crime, even when the general principle of admissibility is met.
