State Of Washington, Respondent V R.h., Iii, Appellant (Majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEAL; DIVISION .11 20Ill DEC 16 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WAS DIVISION II No. 45912 - -II 4 THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, UNPUBLISHED OPINION v. R.H., Appellant. MAxA, J. — of stolen property. RH1 appeals his juvenile court conviction for third degree possession 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 throughout the 31, 2013. neighborhood Harding later identified two of the fishing poles scattered 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. 4t1 8: 3E NG TON 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 was property. on The juvenile Harding' s Harding' s fishing Harding' s property court entered written with other poles were stolen, ( property, ( 4) RH did juveniles fact stating that ( 1) RH findings of without Harding' s permission, ( 2) 3) CS saw RH with the fishing poles after they left 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 - -II 4 ANALYSIS RH argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for third degree possession of stolen Specifically, RH contends that the juvenile court' s property. 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. fact Rose, 175 Wn.2d and not subject 2014). to at review. 14. Credibility determinations are made by the trier of State v. Miller, 179 Wn. App. 91, 105, 316 P. 3d 1143 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) stolen. RH possessed stolen RCW 9A. 56. 140, . 170. knew the fishing property worth less than $ 750, ( 2) knowing it was RH challenges only the juvenile court' s finding that he poles were stolen when he handled them. 3 However, both CR and FV 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 the legal conclusion that RH is guilty findings in turn 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
