Appeals Court Upholds Conviction in Wenatchee Trailer Theft, Rejects Challenge to Property Value

A Washington appeals court has upheld Fedir Anisiyevich Kvashuk’s first-degree theft conviction, ruling that testimony valuing a stolen cargo trailer at $8,000 was enough for a jury to find the property exceeded the $5,000 threshold for the charge.

The Oct. 15, 2026, decision by Division Three of the Court of Appeals rejected Kvashuk’s argument that prosecutors failed to establish the market value of the trailer and the heating and air-conditioning equipment stored inside it.

The panel concluded that the evidence about the trailer alone supported the conviction, even without relying on the estimated $15,000 value of its contents.

Kvashuk was convicted by a jury in Chelan County Superior Court and sentenced to 90 days, according to the opinion.

Chelan County Superior Court Judge Kristin M. Ferrera signed the June 10, 2024, judgment under review.

The trailer belonged to North Cascades Heating & Air Conditioning, an Entiat business that designs and installs residential, commercial and industrial HVAC systems. It was taken without permission from a Wenatchee job site in May 2022.

According to the court’s account, an investigation by the Washington State Patrol’s Puget Sound Auto Theft Task Force connected Kvashuk to the theft.

Officers recovered the trailer and later located equipment removed from it while executing a search warrant. The business recovered the trailer and all of the equipment and materials that had been inside.

At trial, company representative Thomas Tice testified that the 2021 Mirage cargo trailer was used to haul and store materials. Its contents included equipment and specialty ductwork fabricated in the company’s shop.

Asked to estimate the trailer’s value when it was taken, Tice referred to a vehicle valuation guide.

“Kelly Blue Book would probably put it at 8,000,” he testified, according to the opinion.

Tice estimated the equipment and materials inside at roughly $15,000, bringing his combined estimate to $23,000.

Kvashuk argued on appeal that those estimates lacked an adequate foundation. Tice did not itemize the goods, describe their condition or explain how he calculated their value. Nor, Kvashuk argued, did the testimony establish depreciation or expressly identify the estimates as fair market value.

The distinction mattered because the prosecution had to prove the stolen property was worth more than $5,000. As the court explained, market value is the price an informed buyer and seller would agree to when neither is required to make the transaction.

The relevant value was the property’s value at the time and in the approximate area of the theft.

The appellate court reviewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, asking whether a rational juror could find the disputed element proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Assessing witness credibility and the weight of testimony remained the jury’s responsibility.

Writing for the panel, Judge Megan Murphy concluded that Tice’s answer addressed the trailer’s value at the time of the theft.

The jury could reasonably infer that the 2021 trailer was about a year old when taken in 2022 and that his reference to a recognized valuation resource accounted for its age, condition and use.

The court also emphasized that the $8,000 estimate exceeded the statutory threshold by a substantial margin.

Kvashuk relied on earlier cases in which valuation evidence fell short. In one, State v. Williams, a witness gave a rough $800 estimate for personal items, only slightly above the $750 threshold for second-degree theft, without explaining the basis for the estimate.

The panel distinguished that case from Kvashuk’s because the trailer’s estimated value was well above the threshold and the testimony supported inferences about its age and condition.

It also distinguished two other decisions involving replacement costs without evidence accounting for the stolen items’ age, condition or depreciation.

Tice’s familiarity with the business provided additional support, the court found. His testimony allowed jurors to infer that he was an owner or managing supervisor familiar with its inventory and operations.

Although Kvashuk challenged the lack of an explicit job title or detailed duties, the panel said those concerns affected the weight of the testimony rather than its legal sufficiency.

The court acknowledged that Tice’s description of the trailer’s contents was general. But even if that valuation were viewed skeptically, the evidence about the trailer was sufficient to sustain the conviction.

Judges Tracy Staab and Tyson Hill joined Murphy’s opinion. The opinion is unpublished.