State Of Washington, V R.h., Iii ( 2014 )

COURT OF
APPEAL;
DIVISION .11
20Ill DEC 16
4t1 8: 3E
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WAS NG TON
DIVISION II
THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 45912 -4 -II
Respondent,
v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
R.H.,
Appellant.
MAxA, J. — RH1 appeals his juvenile court conviction for third degree possession
of stolen property. RH argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence that he
knew the property was stolen and that he possessed the property knowing it was stolen.
We disagree, and affirm.
FACTS
Four fishing poles were stolen from Kitty Harding' s front porch in the early
morning of July 31, 2013. Harding later identified two of the fishing poles scattered
throughout the neighborhood in broken pieces. ' The other two fishing poles were never
recovered.
The State charged RH with third degree possession of stolen property. At the fact
finding adjudication hearing in juvenile court, Harding and three other witnesses placed
1 RH and several other witnesses are minors. We refer to them by their initials in order to
protect their privacy.
45912 -4 -II
RH at the scene of the crime. One of the witnesses testified that RH took one of the
fishing poles and another witness testified that RH handled the stolen fishing poles.
Harding testified that before the fishing poles were stolen, she observed RH and
three other juveniles in her front yard at approximately 1: 30 AM on July 31. She asked
them multiple times to leave her yard.
CS testified that he was with RH on the night at issue, and that RH took one of the
fishing poles. He also testified that he saw RH with the fishing poles and saw RH throw
one of them.
CR testified that he was with RH and the group of juveniles on the night of July
30 and the morning of July 31. CR testified that the whole group was present when the
fishing poles were stolen, and that he saw RH handle at least one of the fishing poles. CR
testified that he ( CR) knew the poles were stolen.
FV testified that he was with the group, including RH, when the fishing poles
were stolen. FV testified that RH did not encourage anyone to take the fishing poles and
that RH was " kind of scared, like he wanted to leave." Verbatim Report of Proceedings
at52.
After the hearing, the juvenile court found RH guilty of third degree possession of
stolen property. The juvenile court entered written findings of fact stating that ( 1) RH
juveniles Harding' s 2)
was on Harding' s property with other without permission, (
Harding' s fishing poles were stolen, ( 3) CS saw RH with the fishing poles after they left
Harding' s property, ( 4) RH did not own the fishing poles, and ( 5) RH knew that the
fishing poles had been stolen but retained them despite his knowledge. RH appeals.
2
45912 -4 -II
ANALYSIS
RH argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for third
degree possession of stolen property. Specifically, RH contends that the juvenile court' s
finding that RH knew the fishing poles were stolen is not supported by substantial
evidence. We disagree.
The test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence is whether, after viewing
the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to the State,
a rational trier of fact could find each element of the crime proved beyond a reasonable
doubt. State v. Rose, 175 Wn. 2d 10, 14, 282 P. 3d 1087 ( 2012). A claim of insufficiency
admits the truth of the State' s evidence and all inferences that reasonably can be drawn
therefrom. Rose, 175 Wn.2d at 14. Credibility determinations are made by the trier of
fact and not subject to review. State v. Miller, 179 Wn. App. 91, 105, 316 P. 3d 11432014). Circumstantial and direct evidence are equally reliable. Miller, 179 Wn. App. at
105.
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).
Unchallenged findings of fact are verities on appeal. State v. Lohr, 164 Wn. App. 414,
418, 263 P. 3d 1287 ( 2011).
To convict RH of third degree possession of stolen property, the State had to
prove that ( 1) RH possessed stolen property worth less than $ 750, ( 2) knowing it was
stolen. RCW 9A. 56. 140, . 170. RH challenges only the juvenile court' s finding that he
knew the fishing poles were stolen when he handled them. However, both CR and FV
3
45912 -4 -II
testified that RH was with the group when someone from the group stole Harding' s
fishing poles. CS testified that RH himself took one of the fishing poles. This testimony
provides substantial evidence that RH knew the fishing poles were stolen.
The juvenile court' s findings in turn the legal conclusion that RH is guilty
of third degree possession of stolen property. The juvenile court' s unchallenged findings
of fact established that the fishing poles were stolen and that RH possessed them. And,
as noted above, the juvenile court' s finding that RH knew the fishing poles were stolen is
supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the juvenile court' s findings of fact
establish all the essential elements of third degree possession of stolen property.
The State presented sufficient evidence to support RH.'s conviction for third
degree possession of stolen property. Accordingly, we affirm.
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in
the Washington Appellate Reports but will be filed for public record in accordance with
RCW 2. 06. 040, it is so ordered.
We concur:
4