State Of Washington v. Jahad Hill ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                 o
    c?3       , J^~l
    m
    ro
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
    STATE OF WASHINGTON ,                                      No. 70427-3-I
    Respondent,
    DIVISION ONE
    v.
    UNPUBLISHED OPINION
    JAHADV.D. HILL,
    DOB: 4/18/95
    Appellant.                            FILED: July 21, 2014
    Spearman, C.J. — Jahad V.D. Hill challenges the sufficiency of the
    evidence supporting his juvenile adjudication for residential burglary. We find no
    error and affirm.
    FACTS
    Thu Phan lives on the north side of the 400 block of SW 126th Street in
    Burien. Around 9:30 a.m. on September 24, 2012, Phan left her home to go to a
    doctor's appointment. While Phan was gone, her home was burglarized.
    Daniel Mendes lives on the south side of the 400 block of SW 126th
    Street, opposite Phan. Around the same time that Phan left her house, Mendes
    was on his lawn talking to a neighbor. He saw a male walk up to Phan's house,
    knock on the door, wait a few seconds, and then turn around and walk away.1
    1 A review of the record shows that Mendes did not identify this house as Phan's
    house, merely stating itwas a neighbor's house. However, Hill does not assign error to
    the trial court's finding that Mendes saw "a male walk up to Phan's house, knock on her
    door, and walk away." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 16 (Finding of Fact 8). Unchallenged
    findings offact are verities on appeal. State v. Lew. 
    156 Wn.2d 709
    , 733, 
    132 P.3d 1076
    (2006).
    No. 70427-3-1/2
    Mendes described the male as slender, African-American, about six feet tall, with
    short hair, and wearing a black jacket and dark pants or blue jeans. When asked
    if he thought the male's behavior seemed unusual for the neighborhood, Mendes
    replied:
    When my neighbor and I were talking, we noticed him walking
    down the street from the intersection and just go to that one
    particular house and then turn around and walk away. And
    we had commented, you know, that it seemed odd. We
    thought if it was a solicitor or something going door to door,
    he would have knocked on more doors than just the one.
    Verbatim Report of Proceedings (VRP) (03/18,19/13) at 32-33.
    Andrew Denny also lives in the neighborhood. When leaving his house to
    run an errand that morning, Denny saw two males sitting in a maroon Buick
    parked in the 800 block of SW 124th Street. Denny thought they "didn't look very
    friendly" so he circled the block. VRP (03/18,19/13) at 8. When he came back
    around, he saw the car parked in a different location a short distance away in the
    700 block of SW 124th Street. He saw another male, who appeared to be going
    door to door to houses on the block, run towards the Buick. He described the two
    males in the car as "big stocky guys" and the third male as "skinny," on the taller
    side, and wearing a red baseball cap, khaki pants and red shoes. VRP (03/
    18,19/13) at 15. Denny called 911.
    Kimberly McCann works at the Bel-R Greenhouse, which spans the 400
    and 500 block of SW 124th Street. The greenhouse property extends back to SW
    126th Street. Because the greenhouse does not sell to the public, it does not get
    much foot traffic. That morning McCann was looking out her office window when
    she noticed two black males cutting through the greenhouse's property. They
    -2-
    No. 70427-3-1/3
    were "walking away from Phan's home, heading directly north." CP at 16 (Finding
    of Fact 13). She described the males as "walking rather fast and not looking
    around" and that they "were juggling stuff in and out of [a] bag." VRP (03/18,
    19/13) at 69. McCann elaborated further on the bag:
    Q. When you were at your desk, you said that they were trying to
    stuff something into a bag.
    A. Yeah.
    Q. Could you please tell us more exactly kind of what you mean
    by that.
    A. Well, they were walking close together. They had this bag
    between the two of them like a plastic shopping bag kind of, and
    trying to shuffle things back and forth in it, so like from their hands
    into the bag.
    Q. Were both of the males that you saw handling the property that
    they were trying to put into the bag?
    A. I believe so. One of them was holding the bag, I think, and the
    other one was trying to put something in there. I didn't see what
    he was trying to put in there.
    VRP (03/18,19/13) at 72-73. McCann watched as the two males walked towards
    SW 124th Street at which point she lost sight of them. She left her office and
    walked out to the street. A few minutes later, she saw both males come from
    behind a house on the opposite side of the street and run towards the street.
    They were no longer carrying the bag.
    William Barker is a military police officer who lives in the 400 block of SW
    124th Street, on the greenhouse's property. He owns a dog that barks whenever
    anyone walks past his house. Around 10:00 a.m., Barker's dog barked and
    Barker looked out his front window. Barker saw two black males, one tall and one
    short, walking down SW 124th Street. The taller male was "wearing all black."
    -3-
    No. 70427-3-1/4
    VRP (03/18,19/13) at 55. The shorter male was carrying a yellow bag and both
    were "behaving in a furtive manner." VRP (03/18,19/13) at 52. A few minutes
    later, Barker's dog barked again, and Barker saw the same two males on the
    other side of the street in a neighbor's driveway. The males were no longer
    carrying the yellow bag and were "looking around for something or looking for
    somewhere to put something, .. ."VRP (03/18,19/13) at 53. Barker called 911.
    At approximately 9:53 a.m., officers from the King County Sheriff's Office
    responded to the area. Neighborhood residents pointed out the two males and
    officers identified the taller male as Hill and the shorter male as Z.A. Z.A. was out
    of breath and sweaty. Officer Michael Glasgow went into the backyard of the
    residence McCann and Barker saw Hill and Z.A. come from and found a yellow
    backpack laying on the ground. The yellow backpack contained property from
    Phan's house as well as documents with Phan's name and address on them.
    Both McCann and Barker identified Hill and Z.A. as the two males they had seen
    carrying the bag. Officer Ray Galusha went to Phan's house, where he
    discovered that a window on the back side of the house was open and the
    window screen was damaged and laying on the ground below the window. A
    fingerprint matching Z.A. was lifted from the screen.
    The State charged Hill with one count of residential burglary and one
    count of third degree possession of stolen property. Following a fact finding
    hearing, the trial court found Hill guilty of residential burglary and not guilty of
    possession of stolen property. Hill appeals.
    -4-
    No. 70427-3-1/5
    DISCUSSION
    The sole issue presented is whether sufficient evidence supported the
    adjudication of residential burglary. Jahad V.D. Hill contends that the evidence
    showed only that he was walking with Z.A. shortly after Z.A. burglarized Phan's
    home, but not that he participated in the burglary himself. We find that the
    adjudication was adequately supported by the evidence.
    Evidence is sufficient to support an adjudication of guilt in a juvenile
    proceeding if, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, it permits any
    rational trier of fact to find the essential elements of the crime beyond a
    reasonable doubt. State v. Echeverria, 
    85 Wn. App. 777
    , 782, 
    934 P.2d 1214
    (1997) (citing State v. Green, 
    94 Wn.2d 221
    -22, 
    616 P.2d 628
     (1980)). All
    reasonable inferences from the evidence must be drawn in favor of the State and
    against the defendant. State v. Salinas, 
    119 Wn.2d 192
    , 201, 
    829 P.2d 1068
    (1992). We defer to the trier of fact on issues of conflicting testimony, credibility
    of witnesses, and the persuasiveness of the evidence. State v. Thomas, 
    150 Wn.2d 821
    , 874-75, 
    83 P.3d 970
     (2004). Circumstantial evidence and direct
    evidence are equally reliable. Thomas, 
    150 Wn.2d at 874
    .
    "In reviewing a juvenile court adjudication, we must decide whether
    substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings of fact and, in turn,
    whether the findings support the conclusions of law." State v. B.J.S.. 
    140 Wn. App. 91
    , 97, 
    169 P.3d 34
     (2007). We review conclusions of law de novo. Lew,
    156Wn.2dat733.
    A person is guilty of residential burglary if he "enters or remains unlawfully
    in a dwelling other than a vehicle" with "intent to commit a crime against a person
    or property therein." RCW 9A.52.025(1). A person is an accomplice of another
    No. 70427-3-1/6
    person in the commission of a crime if, "[w]ith knowledge that it will promote or
    facilitate the commission of the crime, he or she (i) [sjolicits, commands,
    encourages, or requests such other person to commit it; or (ii) [a]ids or agrees to
    aid such other person in planning or committing it." RCW 9A.08.020(3)(a). "'A
    person who is present at the scene and ready to assist by his ... presence is
    aiding in the commission of the crime.'" B.J.S., 140 Wn. App. at 98 (quoting
    State v. Dove, 
    52 Wn. App. 81
    , 87, 
    757 P.2d 990
     (1988)).
    Here, the State's evidence was sufficient to adjudicate Hill of residential
    burglary. Phan's house was burglarized sometime between 9:30 a.m. and 9:53
    a.m. Around 9:30 a.m., a black male matching Hill's description walked up to
    Phan's front door, knocked, waited a few moments, and walked away.              Soon
    thereafter, Hill and Z.A. cut through the greenhouse's property in a direction that
    led directly north from Phan's house to SW 124th Street.           Hill and Z.A. were
    carrying a yellow bag between them and were shuffling things around in the bag.
    Both were behaving in a furtive manner. A few minutes later, Hill and Z.A. came
    from behind a house on the north side of SW 124th Street without the bag. The
    bag, containing items stolen from Phan's home, was discovered in the house's
    backyard. A window in the back of Phan's home had been opened and Z.A.'s
    fingerprints were discovered on the window screen. There was no reasonable
    explanation for why Hill would knock on Phan's door, why Z.A.'s fingerprints
    would be on Phan's window screen, or why Hill and Z.A. would be in possession
    of Phan's property. Though the evidence was circumstantial, taken together, it
    was sufficient to support the residential burglary adjudication.
    -6-
    No. 70427-3-1/7
    Hill argues that his mere presence near the scene of the crime is
    insufficient to establish guilt. In support, Hill relies on In re Welfare of Wilson. 
    91 Wn.2d 487
    , 
    588 P.2d 1161
     (1979) and State v. Robinson. 
    73 Wn. App. 851
    , 872
    P.2d43(1994).
    In Wilson, a group of youths tied a rope around a tree, strung the rope
    across a road, and pulled the rope taut as cars approached. Wilson. 
    91 Wn.2d at 489
    . The juvenile defendant was adjudicated of reckless endangerment though
    the evidence showed that the defendant was merely standing with the group.
    Wilson. 
    91 Wn.2d at 489-90
    . The court reversed, holding that the defendant's
    presence, knowledge of the crime and acquaintance with the participants was not
    sufficient to support the adjudication. Wilson. 
    91 Wn.2d at 491-92
    . In Robinson,
    the juvenile defendant drove some friends around in his mother's car. Robinson,
    73 Wn. App. at 852. Without warning, one of the friends jumped out of the car,
    grabbed a bystander's purse, and jumped back into the car. Robinson. 73 Wn.
    App. at 852.      The defendant was adjudicated of second degree robbery.
    Robinson. 73 Wn. App. at 854. The court reversed, holding that the defendant's
    knowledge that his friend committed a crime and "his mere presence at the
    scene" did not constitute robbery. Robinson. 73 Wn. App. at 857.
    In contrast to Wilson and Robinson, the evidence of Hill's guilt went
    beyond the mere fact that he was present at the scene of the crime. A male
    matching Hill's description approached Phan's house and knocked on the front
    door around the same time that Phan's house was burglarized.             Hill and Z.A.
    were later seen hurrying away from Phan's house and handling a bag containing
    -7-
    No. 70427-3-1/8
    items stolen from her home. They then entered the backyard of another house
    and concealed the bag.       This evidence was sufficient to create a reasonable
    inference that Hill participated in the burglary.
    Citing State v. Mace. 
    97 Wn.2d 840
    , 
    650 P.2d 217
     (1982), Hill argues that
    the evidence that he handled the stolen property was insufficient to prove that he
    participated in the burglary. In Mace, the court held that "proof of possession of
    recently stolen property, unless accompanied by other evidence of guilt, is not
    prima facie evidence of burglary." Mace. 
    97 Wn.2d at 843
    . The State must show
    at least "slight corroborative evidence of other inculpatory circumstances." Mace,
    
    97 Wn.2d at 843
     (quoting State v. Portee. 
    25 Wn.2d 246
    , 253-54, 
    170 P.2d 326
    (1946)). Such circumstances include flight or "presence of the accused near the
    scene of the crime." Mace. 
    97 Wn.2d at 843
    .
    Here, as discussed above, the trial court did not rely solely on the
    evidence that Hill had handled the yellow bag. Rather, the trial court evaluated
    this evidence in combination with other inculpatory factors, including Hill's flight
    from Phan's home and his presence with Z.A. a block from Phan's house.
    Finally, Hill argues that because the trial court did not make a specific
    finding that Hill was the individual who knocked on Phan's door, this court must
    assume that the person who knocked on Phan's door was not Hill.2 He relies on
    State v. Armenta. 
    134 Wn.2d 1
    , 14, 
    948 P.2d 1280
     (1997), which held that the
    2 Finding of Fact 8 states: "Daniel Mendes lives across the street from Phan on
    SW 126th Street. At 9:30 that morning, Mendes was out in his front lawn. He saw a male
    walk up to Phan's house, knock on her door, and walk away." Finding of Fact 9 states:
    "Mendes described the male that knocked on Phan's door as young, African-American,
    six feet tall, slender, wearing dark pants, with short hair." CP at 16.
    -8-
    No. 70427-3-1/9
    absence of a finding regarding a material fact is presumptively regarded as a
    finding against the party having the burden of proof.
    But this court may review a finding when an implicit finding can be inferred
    from the record. State v. Sisouvanh. 
    175 Wn.2d 607
    , 618, 
    290 P.3d 942
     (2012).
    Here, the trial court made oral findings which were expressly incorporated into its
    written findings and which indicate rejection of Hill's argument. In its oral ruling,
    the trial court stated:
    So these events did in fact occur within a relatively short period of
    time. There is a limit to the value of any evidence, including
    circumstantial     evidence,   however,    sometimes      circumstantial
    evidence adds up and becomes far more than mere coincidence. I
    do not know and will not conclude that the person that Mr. Denny
    saw and described as wearing a red hat and red hightops was
    either Mr. Hill or Mr. Ahmed. It doesn't fit the descriptions by the
    other people. However, I do believe that in a very short period of
    time the testimony of Mr. Barker, Ms. McCann and Mr. Mendes, all
    of whom saw what was happening in a short period of time, all of
    whom identified the people the police had detained as the people
    they had seen carrying the yellow bag and then going without the
    yellow bag combined with the testimony about this area and the
    map...which shows the ingress and egress from this property and a
    driveway that goes, partly paved, mostly not paved, from 124th
    over to 4th Avenue South.      The locations where Mr. Hill and Mr.
    Ahmed were sighted. The fact that Mr. Hill was arrested with Mr.
    Ahmed and Mr. Ahmed's prints were found on the screen, that is far
    more than mere coincidence, that is a lot of circumstantial evidence
    that places Mr. Hill at the scene of this residential burglary.
    VRP (03/18,19/13) at 165-66. The trial court implied that while there was not
    sufficient evidence that the taller male Denny saw was Hill, there was sufficient
    evidence that the taller male that McCann, Barker and Mendes saw was Hill.
    The trial court also noted that Mendes's description of Hill's age, race, height,
    physique and clothing was consistent with Barker's description. Though the trial
    court inaccurately stated that Mendes had seen Hill carrying the bag - Mendes
    No. 70427-3-1/10
    had only seen the knocking on Phan's house on SW 126th Street, not the flight
    on SW 124th Street - it is apparent from its ruling that the trial court made an
    implicit finding that the individual who knocked on Phan's door was Hill. In
    conclusion, we hold that the State presented sufficient evidence to prove that Hill
    participated in the burglary. Accordingly, we affirm.3
    J44 f4 (^ck—j L .O .
    WE CONCUR:
    3 Hill contends that several of the trial court's written findings were not supported by
    substantial evidence. We agree with Hill that substantial evidence did not support the
    two following findings:
    • "Around 9:30 that morning, Denny saw a maroon car following a young
    African-American male who was walking from house-to-house." CP at
    16 (Finding of Fact 5). Denny did not testify as to the male's race, nor
    did he testify that the car was following the male.
    • "If a customer decides to visit [the Bel-R Greenhouse], they always
    schedule an appointment." CP at 16 (Finding of Fact 12). While
    McCann testified that the greenhouse receives little foot traffic, she did
    not testify that customers always scheduled an appointment.
    However, even absent these findings, the evidence was sufficient to support Hill's
    adjudication.
    -10-