State Of Washington v. J.t. ( 2013 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WAShHNGTON
No. 68632-1-1
Respondent,
DIVISION ONE CO o
—i .—
V.
^2'
m
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
JACOB D. TUJI, no
co
B.D. 09/01/94,
Appellant. ) FILED: May 28, 2013 CO
CO
en
Grosse, J. — A claim of insufficiency of the evidence requires an
appellate court to review the evidence to determine whether any rational trier of
fact could find each element of the crime was proved beyond a reasonable
doubt. Matters pertaining to credibility of witnesses, conflicting testimony, and
persuasiveness of the evidence are the exclusive province of the fact finder.
Here, although the evidence was conflicting, there was sufficient evidence from
the accounts of three eyewitnesses to support the trial court's finding that it was
the respondent who committed the assault.
FACTS
On September 22, 2011, Erika Bowman and her brother Charles Bowman
boarded a crowded bus heading to the South Renton Park and Ride. Erika was
carrying a small animal in a large cage. She sat in an aisle seat with the cage on
the floor by her seat. Charles sat in a seat closer to the front of the bus, a few
rows ahead of Erika's seat. At Southcenter Mall a group of teenagers, including
Jacob Tuji and Devaughn Simmons, boarded the bus. Simmons wanted Erika to
move over so he could have her seat. She refused, but offered to let him sit near
the window as she wanted to safeguard her pet. The teens became abusive with
No. 68632-1-1/2
one of them calling her a "fat white bitch." Erika responded by calling the
teenagers "Black Smurfs." The verbal altercation escalated with the teens
accusing Erika of being racist. Charles, hearing the insults directed at his sister,
stood up and told them to leave his sister alone. Threats were made to jump
Charles and "punch [his] crooked eye straight." The bus driver verbally
intervened threatening to put them off the bus. The argument subsided and
Charles returned to his seat.
At the South Renton Park and Ride, Erika and Charles exited the bus
along with several of the passengers. Erika saw Charles being assaulted by a
couple of the teenagers, including Tuji. She tried to pull them off and Tuji
punched her. Erika identified Tuji as the person who punched her as she tried to
pull him off. The teenagers ran off and Erika followed calling 911. Erika
described Tuji as a black teenage male with a thin build, wearing a black and
white striped shirt. Shortly thereafter the police apprehended Simmons and Tuji,
a black teen male, with a thin build, wearing a black and white striped shirt.
Tenisha Hermans, a fellow passenger who disembarked from the bus at the
same time, witnessed the attack on Charles. Erika, Charles, and Hermans
provided Office Donald Meyers with a statement about what had happened. The
police transported the three witnesses, one at a time, to a show-up identification.
Erika identified Tuji as one of the teenagers who had harassed her on the bus
and who was standing over Charles on the ground. Charles identified Tuji as
one of the teens who threatened to jump him on the bus and as one of the teens
that had attacked him. Hermans identified Tuji as the teenager whom she saw
punching Charles several times. Charles was treated at the scene and later
2
No. 68632-1-1/3
transported to Valley Medical Center where he was diagnosed with facial
fractures.
The State charged Tuji with second degree assault. The trial court found
Tuji guilty of the offense charged. Tuji appeals.
ANALYSIS
The State must prove each essential element of a charged crime beyond
a reasonable doubt.1 Tuji argues that there was insufficient evidence to prove
that he was the person who assaulted the victim.2 Evidence is sufficient to
support a conviction if, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, any
rational fact finder could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt.3 The State bears the burden of establishing beyond a
reasonable doubt the identity of the accused as the person who committed the
offense.4 A claim of insufficiency of evidence admits the truth of the State's
evidence and all inferences that can be reasonably drawn from that evidence.5
"We defer to the trier of fact on issues of conflicting testimony, credibility of
witnesses, and the persuasiveness of evidence."6
Here, Tuji argues that the evidence was insufficient to identify him as the
one who committed the assault. He contends that the evidence linking him with
the assault was equivocal and conflicting. Two of the three eye witnesses
1 State v. Oster, 147 Wn.2d 141, 146, 52 P.3d 26 (2002).
2 The charge of second degree assault required the State to prove that Tuji
intentionally assaulted Charles Bowman and thereby recklessly inflicted
substantial bodily harm. RCW 9A.36.021(1)(a). Tuji only challenges the
sufficiency of the identification.
3 State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 820 P.2d 1068 (1992).
4 State v. Hill, 83 Wn.2d 558, 560, 520 P.2d 618 (1974).
5 Salinas, 119 Wn.2d at 201.
6State v. Manion Wn. App. 295 P.3d 270, 281 (2013); State v. Fiser,
99 Wn. App. 714, 719, 995 P.2d 107 (2000).
3
No. 68632-1-1/4
testified that they actually observed Tuji assault the victim. Erika acknowledge
that she did not see the first punch thrown, but testified that when she tried to
break up the fight, she was punched by the person she described with the slim
eyes, which indicated Tuji. Hermans testified that Tuji was wearing a black and
white striped shirt and that he was the individual who had hit Charles several
times. Herman also testified that it was Tuji who swung at Erika. Although
Hermans' identification was based in part on the black and white striped shirt Tuji
was wearing at the show-up identification, she also described the attacker as a
tall, slim, black male and testified that he was the same person she saw attacking
Charles. At trial Charles testified that he had been hit several times by an
individual wearing a black and white striped shirt. Officer Meyers testified that
Charles was able to identify Tuji as the suspect who had struck him.
When viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence was
sufficient to prove that it was Tuji who assaulted Charles with the intent to harm.
Accordingly, we affirm the order on disposition.
WE CONCUR:
Goix~5.