State v. Livengood, 122241

Livengood and Dechant dated for about six years but lived separately; in January 2015 Livengood purchased a Shih‑Tzu–Poodle named Hudson, and Hudson resided with Dechant (they shared some care expenses).
The couple broke up on December 25, 2016; Dechant retained continuous possession of Hudson thereafter without apparent objection from Livengood.
In April 2018 Hudson was taken from Dechant’s fenced yard; Dechant reported the theft and police investigated, reviewing security video and interviewing witnesses.
Initially Livengood denied knowledge and did not assert ownership; about a month later police found a dog at Livengood’s home identified by microchip as Hudson but wearing a collar tag labeled "Dallas."
Livengood told officers the dog had been at his mother’s, then refused to disclose how he obtained Hudson because it might "get somebody else in trouble," and later asserted ownership; he was charged with misdemeanor theft (and alternatively temporary deprivation).
At trial Livengood testified he bought Hudson and never gifted him to Dechant; Dechant testified to continuous possession. A jury convicted Livengood of theft; he appealed, arguing insufficient evidence that Dechant owned Hudson in spring 2018.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence that Dechant owned Hudson in spring 2018	State: Dechant’s continuous possession, Livengood’s post‑breakup failure to assert ownership, and his earlier disclaimers permit inference of ownership/abandonment by Livengood	Livengood: he purchased Hudson, never made a gift, and considered himself the owner	Court: Evidence was sufficient; jurors reasonably could find Dechant owned Hudson; conviction affirmed
Sufficiency of evidence that Livengood knew property was stolen and intended to permanently deprive	State: Livengood’s refusal to explain how he obtained the dog and renaming it "Dallas" indicated knowledge and intent to keep Hudson	Livengood: did not press a contrary sufficiency argument on appeal; earlier inconsistent statements at investigation	Court: Evidence supported these elements as well

State v. Jenkins, 308 Kan. 545 (2018) (describes sufficiency standard and deference to jury findings)
State v. Butler, 307 Kan. 831 (2018) (appellate review does not reweigh evidence or reassess credibility)
State v. Pham, 281 Kan. 1227 (2006) (review standard for criminal sufficiency challenges)
State v. McBroom, 299 Kan. 731 (2014) (rational juror standard for guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
Alexander v. Logan, 65 Kan. 505 (1902) (possession is evidence of ownership)
Willcox v. Stroup, 467 F.3d 409 (4th Cir. 2006) (possession can indicate ownership)
Schoenholz v. Hinzman, 295 Kan. 786 (2012) (abandonment of personal property is a fact question of intent)
State v. Thach, 305 Kan. 72 (2016) (intent may be proved through circumstantial evidence)
State v. Franco, 49 Kan. App. 2d 924 (2014) (appellate courts defer to jury credibility determinations)