State v. Laborde, 303 Kan. 1

Jodie Laborde lived with Staff Sergeant Harry Price III; Price kept Army-issued gear at the shared farm.
After an October 2010 dispute, Price left for West Virginia and repeatedly tried to recover his military property; Laborde gave varying statements about the property’s location (barracks, storage, sold, donated).
Police searches and Price’s escorted visits recovered some items but about $4,615.50 worth of military gear remained missing.
State charged Laborde with felony theft by deception (K.S.A. 21-3701(a)(2)); trial jury was instructed on theft by unauthorized control (alternative theory) and convicted her; district court sentenced her.
Court of Appeals affirmed, finding insufficiency for theft by deception but concluding invited-error principles barred Laborde from complaining about the unauthorized-control instruction.
Kansas Supreme Court granted review, treated the appeal as a pure sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim under the charged offense (theft by deception). The Court reversed the conviction, holding evidence insufficient for theft by deception.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supported conviction for theft by deception (did defendant obtain control by deception?)	State: Laborde’s lies about location prevented Price from retrieving gear and thus she obtained control by deception.	Laborde: Lies were post hoc concealment; she already had control and did not obtain it by deception, so theft by deception not proven.	Reversed: Evidence insufficient to prove deception-induced transfer of control; conviction cannot stand for theft by deception.
Whether appellate court could affirm on alternative theory (unauthorized control) despite parties not arguing it	State: urged review of sufficiency issue (did not cross-petition)	Laborde: appellate review limited to issues presented; invited-error not raised by parties	Court: Appellate courts should not decide issues not raised by parties; dismissed invited-error analysis and decided sufficiency question.
Whether State could seek review without cross-petition after Court of Appeals affirmed	State: sought to address sufficiency on appeal	Laborde: argued State forfeited right to contest reasoning without cross-petition	Court: State cannot cross-petition to overturn rationale when it won below; sufficiency issue remains properly before Court.
Standard of review on sufficiency challenge	N/A (procedural)	N/A	Court applied evidence-in-light-most-favorable-to-prosecution standard and found insufficiency for theft by deception.

State v. Finch, 223 Kan. 398, 573 P.2d 1048 (1978) ("by deception" requires that victim was actually deceived and relied on false representation)
State v. Fritz, 261 Kan. 294, 933 P.2d 126 (1997) (prosecution must show defendant obtained control by false statement)
State v. Williams, 299 Kan. 509, 324 P.3d 1078 (2014) (standard of review for sufficiency: view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
State v. Hart, 297 Kan. 494, 301 P.3d 1279 (2013) (State may not petition for review to relitigate rationale when it prevailed in Court of Appeals)