Find Legal Information

Court of Appeals Division II
State of Washington

Opinion Information Sheet

			

    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

                                       DIVISION  II

STATE OF WASHINGTON,                                             No.  42277-8-II

                             Respondent,

       v.

K.R.B.,?                                                   UNPUBLISHED OPINION

                             Appellant.

       Quinn-Brintnall, J.   --   K.R.B. appeals his adjudication for second degree possession of 

stolen property, arguing that the State failed to present sufficient evidence that he knowingly 

possessed stolen property.  We affirm.1

       On October 17, 2010, K.R.B., his girlfriend, M.G., her two-year-old brother, her friend,

T.E., and T.E.'s younger brother, entered the Macy's in the Vancouver Mall.  They went to the 

young men's department, where M.G. picked out clothing for K.R.B. and T.E. picked out 

clothing for her boyfriend.  They draped the clothes over a baby stroller that they had brought.  

? Under RAP 3.4, this court changes the title of the case to the juvenile's initials.  The opinion 
also uses initials for the additional juvenile parties to protect their confidentiality. 

1 A commissioner of this court initially considered K.R.B.'s appeal as a motion on the merits 
under RAP 18.14 and then transferred it to a panel of judges. 

No. 42277-8-II

K.R.B. told M.E. which clothes he did not like and pointed out clothes that he preferred.  The 

younger boys were getting rambunctious so K.R.B. took them to another area of the store.  They 

returned briefly and then M.G. and T.E. took the clothing and stroller into a fitting room, where 

they concealed some of the clothing and other items in bags on the stroller.  They left the fitting 

room, returned some items, and left the store without paying for any of the items they concealed 

on the stroller.  M.G. called K.R.B., who met them in the parking lot.  

       While the group was in the young men's department, they had been under surveillance by 

David Logan, an undercover security detective, and his partner.  He saw M.G. and T.E. enter and 

leave the fitting room.  After they left the fitting room, Logan's partner entered it and saw that 

some of the items that they saw M.G. and T.E. take into the fitting room were not there.  They 

concluded that M.G. and T.E. had taken the items and they went to stop them.  However, by the 

time they located M.G. and T.E., they were in the parking lot.  Store policy prevented them from 

detaining M.G. and T.E. once they were in the parking lot, so they called the Vancouver Police 

and kept watching M.G. and T.E.  They saw K.R.B. and the younger boys meet up with M.G. and 

T.E. and then saw the group walk toward a Red Robin.  At times, K.R.B. pushed the stroller.  

       Vancouver Police Officer Brett Donaldson responded to the call of a shoplifting from the 

Macy's.  He activated his emergency lights and pulled up to where K.R.B., M.G., and T.E. were

walking.  As Donaldson got out of his patrol car, he saw clothing draped over the stroller.  When 

Donaldson  contacted K.R.B., K.R.B. was "very rude, swearing, didn't want to cooperate."  

Report of Proceedings (May 25, 2011) at 59.  Logan and his partner arrived, took the items from 

the stroller, and determined that they had been stolen and that their aggregate value was over 

$800.  About half of the clothing recovered was men's clothing.  On cross-examination, Logan 

                                               2 

No. 42277-8-II

testified that the stolen items were still in bags on the stroller when he and his partner arrived.  

       The State charged K.R.B. with second degree theft and second degree possession of 

stolen property.  Logan and Officer Donaldson testified as described above.  M.G. testified that 

she and T.E. had stolen the clothing and that she had not discussed stealing the items with K.R.B. 

before she and T.E. concealed them on the stroller and that she did not tell K.R.B. that they had 

done so.  She testified that the stolen items were still concealed when Donaldson contacted them.  

She said some of the stolen clothing was intended for K.R.B. and some for T.E.'s boyfriend.  

K.R.B. testified that he did not know that M.G. and T.E. had gone into the fitting room and did 

not know that they had concealed the items in bags on the stroller until Donaldson contacted 

them.  

       The juvenile court found K.R.B. not guilty of second degree theft but found him guilty of 

second degree possession of stolen property.  In so doing, it concluded that K.R.B. "acted with 

knowledge that the property had been stolen."  Clerk's Papers (CP) at 17.

       K.R.B. appeals, arguing that the State failed to present sufficient evidence that he knew he 

was in possession of stolen property.  Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if, when 

viewed in the light most favorable to the State, it permits any rational trier of fact to find the 

essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.  State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 

829 P.2d 1068 (1992).  "A claim of insufficiency admits the truth of the State's evidence and all 

inferences that reasonably can be drawn therefrom."  Salinas, 119 Wn.2d at 201.  Circumstantial 

evidence and direct evidence are equally reliable.  State v. Delmarter, 94 Wn.2d 634, 638, 618 

P.2d 99 (1980).  We defer to the trier of fact on issues of conflicting testimony, credibility of 

witnesses, and the persuasiveness of the evidence.  State v. Walton, 64 Wn. App. 410, 415-16, 

                                               3 

No. 42277-8-II

824 P.2d 533, review denied, 119 Wn.2d 1011 (1992).

       Before the juvenile court could find K.R.B. guilty of second degree possession of stolen 

property, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed stolen property 

"knowing that it has been stolen" and that the value of the stolen property exceeded $750.  RCW 

9A.56.140(1), .160(1)(a).  K.R.B. concedes that the State presented sufficient evidence that the 

value of the items stolen from Macy's exceeded $750.  And he concedes that the State presented 

sufficient evidence that he was in possession of those items when he pushed the stroller towards 

the Red Robin.  But he denies that the State presented sufficient evidence that he knew he was in 

possession of stolen property.  He points to his denial of knowledge of M.G. and T.E.'s actions, 

either before or after they took the clothes.  He points to M.G.'s testimony that she had not told 

him that she and T.E. were going to steal the items or that they had done so when they met in the 

parking lot.  And he points to Logan's testimony that the stolen items were still concealed on the 

stroller when Officer Donaldson stopped the group.  Thus, he contends that the State did not 

present sufficient evidence that he knew there was stolen property on the stroller when he was 

pushing it.2

       However, while Logan testified that the stolen items were still concealed when Officer 

Donaldson stopped the group, Donaldson said that some of the stolen items were visible on top of 

the stroller when he arrived in front of the stroller.  The juvenile court found that "the 

merchandise was strewn about the stroller and clearly visible (including items of clothing over the 

top of the stroller and the handle bar)." CP at 16.  In light of the conflicting evidence, we defer to 

2 He also contends that sufficient evidence does not support the juvenile court's finding that 
Logan and his partner "arrived a short time after law enforcement contacted" the group.  CP at 
16.  However, Logan testified that he and his partner arrived at the scene after Officer Donaldson 
had contacted the group.  
                                               4 

No. 42277-8-II

the trier of fact, here the juvenile court.

       K.R.B. was present with the stroller when Officer Donaldson arrived.  The clearly visible 

items of clothing, combined with K.R.B.'s knowledge that M.G. and T.E. had been picking out 

such items of clothing, some at his direction, and his belligerence with Donaldson provided the 

"slight corroborative evidence of other inculpatory circumstances" sufficient for the juvenile court 

to infer that K.R.B. was pushing a stroller knowing that it contained property stolen from Macy's.  

State v. Withers, 8 Wn. App. 123, 128, 504 P.2d 1151 (1972).  When viewed in the light most 

favorable to the State, sufficient evidence supports the court's finding that K.R.B. is guilty of 

second degree possession of stolen property.

       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.

                                                 QUINN-BRINTNALL, J.
We concur:

HUNT, J.

PENOYAR, C.J.

                                               5