State Of Washington, V Joel Derek Edwards ( 2015 )

ir'
ILED
UUUPiT OF APPER+ S
ZGi JUL --
7 AM g: 47
S
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 46469 -1 - II
Respondent,
vPA
JOEL DEREK EDWARDS, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
WORSWICK, P. J. — Joel Edwards appeals his conviction for tampering with physical
evidence, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because it did not
show that an official proceeding was pending or about to be instituted. The State concedes the
error. We accept the State' s concession and remand with instructions to vacate and dismiss with
prejudice the conviction for tampering with physical evidence.
FACTS
Police officers initially contacted Edwards while responding to a call regarding Edwards
fighting with his stepson. Officers arrested Edwards on an unrelated outstanding warrant.
Following the arrest, officers performed a general search for weapons and contraband. The
search did not produce anything of significance. While being processed at the jail, Edwards
No. 46469 -1 - II
moved his left hand to his mouth. Corrections officer Carpenter instructed Edwards to take his
hand away from his mouth. Officer Carpenter then heard something hit the floor. Officer
Carpenter saw an object on the ground and slid it away from' Edwards with his foot. Officer
Carpenter retrieved the object, a small oxycodone pill. The State charged Edwards with one
count of unlawful possession of a controlled substance— oxycodone, and one count of tampering
with physical evidence. The jury convicted Edwards on both charges. Edwards appeals his
conviction for tampering with physical evidence.
ANALYSIS
Edwards argues, and the State concedes, that the evidence presented at trial was
insufficient to support a conviction for tampering with physical evidence. We accept the State' s
concession because the record does not show that an official proceeding was pending or about to
be instituted relating to Edwards' s unlawful possession of a controlled substance.
The State is required to prove each element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable
doubt. U. S. CONST. amend XIV; State v. Mau, 178 Wash. 2d 308, 312, 308 P.3d 629 ( 2013). A
challenge to the sufficiency of evidence admits the truth of the State' s evidence and all
reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom. State v. Salinas, 119 Wash. 2d 192, 201, 829
P.2d 1068 ( 1992). On review, we consider whether any rational trier of fact, viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could have found all of the elements of the
crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Mason, 160 Wash. 2d 910, 936, 162 P.3d 396
2007).
Statutory interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo. State v. Browne, 181 Wn.
App. 756, 761, 327 P.3d 63 ( 2014). Courts first examine the language of the statute and
No. 46469 -1 - II
determine the plain meaning " from the ordinary meaning of the language at issue, the context of
the statute in which that provision is found, related provisions, and the statutory scheme as a
whole." State v. Engel, 166 Wash. 2d 572, 578, 210 P.3d 1007 ( 2009). To prove the offense of
tampering with physical evidence, the State must demonstrate that Edwards, having reason to
believe an official proceeding was about to be instituted, concealed evidence without legal
authority with an intent to impair its availability at the proceeding. RCW 9A. 72. 150( 1)( a).
When read as a whole, the plain language of RCW 9A.72. 150 requires a connection
between the " official proceeding ... pending or about to be instituted" and the tampered
evidence. The prohibited behavior described under RCW 9A.72. 150( 1)( a) requires an " intent to
impair [ the evidence' s] appearance, character, or availability in such pending or prospective
official proceeding." ( Emphasis added.) There is no ambiguity in the statute; the prospective
proceeding must relate to the evidence being tampered with.
In this case, even accepting the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, no
rational trier of fact could have found that Edwards had reason to believe that an official
proceeding was about to be instituted relating to unlawful possession of a controlled substance.
Edwards was arrested on an unrelated outstanding warrant. Until officer Carpenter retrieved the
oxycodone pill, Edwards could not have had reason to believe that a proceeding would be
initiated for unlawful possession of a controlled substance.
Accordingly, we hold that no rational trier of fact could.find that Edwards had reason to
believe that an official proceeding was about to be instituted prior to tampering with evidence.
Thus, we accept the State' s concession that there was insufficient evidence to prove every
element of the crime of tampering with physical evidence. We reverse the judgment and remand
No. 46469 -1 - II
with instructions to the trial court to vacate and dismiss with prejudice the conviction for
tampering with physical evidence.
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
Worswick, P. J.
We concur:
Maxa, J.
Sutton, J.
M