IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Armstrong J. — Eliseo Campos appeals his jury convictions for possession of a stolen
motor vehicle and attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle. Campos argues on appeal that
the State presented insufficient evidence to prove he was the driver of a stolen vehicle. We
Mike Burdorff borrowed his mother’s Honda Accord to charge the dead battery in his
Volvo. After hooking up jumper cables, Burdorff went inside his house. When he came back
out, the Honda was missing. Burdorff immediately reported the theft, describing the vehicle to
the police as a clean unmarked Honda Accord missing the front driver-side hubcap.
Deputy Jay Swanson received a dispatch broadcast of the stolen Honda and started
following a vehicle that fit the description. Deputy Swanson made eye contact with the driver,
identifying him as a Hispanic male with a shaved head and a dark blue shirt. After confirming that
the vehicle had the license plates of the stolen vehicle, Deputy Swanson initiated a traffic stop by
activating his lights. The vehicle accelerated and Deputy Swanson pursued, reaching speeds of 65
m.p.h. in a 35 m.p.h. speed zone. The chase ended on a dead end gravel road where the Honda
hit a rock pile.
After the Honda hit the rock pile, dust obscured Deputy Swanson’s view. When he got to
the Honda, the driver’s door was open and the driver was gone. Deputy Swanson believed the
suspect driver must have fled to a cone-shaped wooded area nearby. Deputy Swanson called for
assistance securing the area.
Deputy Brian Brennan arrived within 10 minutes with a K-9. After Deputy Brennan twice
announced his intent to search the area with a dog, Campos stood up in the wooded area and put
his hands up. Campos was wearing a dark navy shirt and had a shaved head. At trial, Deputy
Swanson identified Campos as the driver of the stolen Honda.
The jury convicted Campos of possession of a stolen motor vehicle, attempting to elude a
pursuing police vehicle, and bail jumping.1
I. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Campos argues that the State presented insufficient evidence that he was the driver of the
stolen Honda. The State responds that Deputy Swanson’s eyewitness testimony is sufficient
evidence to prove Campos was driving the stolen vehicle.
We test the sufficiency of the evidence by asking whether, viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992). We accept the
truth of the State’s evidence and all inferences that can reasonably be drawn from that evidence.
Campos conceded at trial that he was guilty of the bail jumping charge.
Salinas, 119 Wn.2d at 201.
We defer to the trier of fact to resolve 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) (citing State v. Cord, 103 Wn.2d 361, 367, 693 P.2d 81
RCW 9A.56.140(1) defines “[p]ossessing stolen property” as
knowingly to receive, retain, possess, conceal, or dispose of stolen property
knowing that it has been stolen and to withhold or appropriate the same to the use
of any person other than the true owner or person entitled thereto.
The State must prove, therefore, that Campos (1) knowingly possessed a stolen motor vehicle, (2)
knew the motor vehicle had been stolen, (3) withheld or appropriated the vehicle for use by
someone other than the true owner, and (4) committed these acts in the State of Washington. See
11 Washington Pattern Jury Instructions: Criminal § 77.21 (3d ed. 2008).
RCW 46.61.024(1), defines attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle as follows:
Any driver of a motor vehicle who willfully fails or refuses to immediately bring his
or her vehicle to a stop and who drives his or her vehicle in a reckless manner
while attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle, after being given a visual or
audible signal to bring the vehicle to a stop, shall be guilty of a class C felony.
The only issue here is whether the State proved that Campos was driving the stolen
The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is the person who
committed the charged offense. State v. Hill, 83 Wn.2d 558, 560, 520 P.2d 618 (1974). Identity
is a question of fact for the jury. Hill, 83 Wn.2d at 560. The jury should evaluate all relevant
Campos does not argue that he lawfully possessed the Honda or that whoever drove the Honda
did not know it was stolen. Campos also does not contest that the driver of the Honda attempted
to elude a pursuing police vehicle.
facts that may establish the identity of the person who committed the offense. Hill, 83 Wn.2d at
Deputy Swanson testified that he had a clear view of the driver of the Honda and
described him as a Hispanic male with a shaved head wearing a blue shirt. Campos is a Hispanic
male, had a shaved head at the time of his arrest, and was wearing a dark navy shirt. Deputy
Swanson and Deputy Brennan found Campos near the location where the chase ended. Campos
stood up in a group of trees where Deputy Swanson believed the Honda driver was hiding.
Deputy Swanson positively identified Campos as the person he saw driving the Honda. This
evidence was more than sufficient to prove that Campos was the driver of the Honda.
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.
Van Deren, J.