Find Legal Information

Court of Appeals Division III
State of Washington

Opinion Information Sheet

			

                                                                               FILED
                                                                           MAY 15, 2012
                                                                    In the Office of the Clerk of Court
                                                                  WA State Court of Appeals, Division III

          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
                                     DIVISION THREE

STATE OF WASHINGTON,                                      No.  29715-2-III
                                                )
                      Respondent,               )
                                                )
              v.                                )
                                                )
JOSHUA J. GRIFFIN,                              )         UNPUBLISHED OPINION
                                                )
                      Appellant.                )
                                                )

       Brown, J. ? Joshua J. Griffin appeals his convictions for second degree burglary

and third degree theft.  He contends insufficient evidence supports his convictions.  We 

disagree and affirm.    

                                            FACTS

       On August 23, 2010, at around 8:30 p.m., Daniel Pickett, foreman for a Moses 

Lake construction company, was sleeping at his firm's property in an industrial park next 

to property occupied by Inland Empire Weatherization Company.  Mr. Pickett's dog 

growled while looking out a window and woke him.  Mr. Pickett arose, looked out the 

window, and saw two people and a pickup truck at Inland, one was standing inside the  

No. 29715-2-III  
State v. Griffin  

fence encircling Inland and the other was standing outside the fence, near the pickup 

truck. No one lived in the area and normally Mr. Pickett does not see people out walking 

in the area.  It is an industrial park without homes or restaurants.  

       Mr. Pickett saw the person inside the fence throw a white bag or bucket over the 

fence to the other person, who put it in the bed of the truck.  It was dusk and no lights 

illuminated the area but he thought both people were men.  He called 911 describing what 

he saw and the truck.  While making the call, he saw the truck drive away with two 

people in it.  The truck was heading south and still did not have its lights on.  Mr. Pickett 

did not see other items thrown over the fence, or see anyone enter a trailer located inside 

Inland's fence.  He did not see how the person inside the fence got there or see the two 

people get in the truck because he was calling 911.  Responding police stopped a 

matching pickup truck about one mile away from Inland.  

       The driver, Anjannette Million, and the passenger, Mr. Griffin, were arrested.  

After rights-warnings, Mr. Griffin admitted entering Inland's property, saying he had cut 

across the property in order to meet Ms. Million, who was there to pick him up.  When

asked about the item Mr. Pickett had seen being thrown over the fence, Mr. Griffin said 

he was carrying a white bag of clothing with him, as well as another bag, and those were 

what he threw over the fence to Ms. Million.  Mr. Griffin never talked with police about 

entering any building on the property or taking anything from the property.  The police 

                                               2 

No. 29715-2-III  
State v. Griffin  

executed a search warrant on the impounded truck, finding electrical components, old 

power boxes, meter boxes, rolls of cable, a bag with painted copper tubing, aluminum 

bike rims, and three, white five-gallon buckets containing silverware in the truck bed 

(covered in white plastic garbage bags).  In the truck's cab the police found clothing on 

the floor, and apparently a white bag in the cab that may have been plastic.          

       Mr. Griffin was charged with one count of second degree burglary and one count 

of third degree theft.  At trial, the jury heard the above facts.  And, John Rickey, Inland's 

owner, testified the three buckets and silverware found in Ms. Million's truck were his.  

He had kept the buckets inside an unlocked trailer on the Inland property.  He had not 

used the silverware for a number of years.  Mr. Rickey had never given Mr. Griffin 

permission to enter the property or take the buckets of silverware stored in his trailer.  

Police did not test the buckets or the trailer door for fingerprints.  The jury found Mr. 

Griffin guilty as charged.  He appealed.

                                         ANALYSIS

       The issue is whether sufficient evidence supports Mr. Griffin's convictions for 

second degree burglary and third degree theft.    

       Due process requires the State to prove every element of the crime beyond a 

reasonable doubt.  Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 477, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 147 L. 

Ed. 2d 435 (2000); In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 25 L. Ed. 2d 368 

                                               3 

No. 29715-2-III  
State v. Griffin  

(1970); U.S. Const. amend. XIV; Const. art. I, § 3.  Evidence sufficiently supports a 

conviction if, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, it would permit 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).  An insufficiency claim admits 

the truth of the State's evidence and requires that all reasonable inferences be drawn in 

the State's favor and interpreted most strongly against the defendant.  Id. In determining 

whether the necessary quantum of proof exists, we need not be convinced of the 

defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  State v. Galisia, 63 Wn. App. 833, 838, 

822 P.2d 303 (1992).  Circumstantial evidence is equally as reliable as direct evidence.  

State v. Delmarter, 94 Wn.2d 634, 638, 618 P.2d 99 (1980). 

       First, to prove second degree burglary, the State had to show, beyond a reasonable 

doubt, that Mr. Griffin entered or remained unlawfully in a building with intent to 

commit a crime against a person or property therein.  RCW 9A.52.030(1).  A building 

includes a fenced area.  RCW 9A.04.110(5).  Mr. Griffin concedes he unlawfully entered 

the fenced area.  Br. of Appellant at 6.  But he argues the evidence was insufficient to 

prove he intended to commit a crime.  

       The State responds the unlawful entry sufficiently shows intent to commit a crime.  

RCW 9A.52.040 provides:  

       In any prosecution for burglary, any person who enters or remains 
       unlawfully in a building may be inferred to have acted with intent to 
       commit a crime against a person or property therein, unless such entering or 

                                               4 

No. 29715-2-III  
State v. Griffin  

       remaining shall be explained by evidence satisfactory to the trier of fact to 
       have been made without such criminal intent.  

This "inference is supported by common knowledge and experience."  State v. Brunson, 

76 Wn. App. 24, 27, 877 P.2d 1289 (1994).  And, "noncriminal reasons for unlawfully 

entering . . . are few."  State v. Bishop, 90 Wn.2d 185, 189, 580 P.2d 259 (1978).  

       Mr. Griffin's unlawful entry into Inland's fenced area was not excused by his 

explanation of cutting across the property to get a ride with Ms. Million.  The area is an 

industrial park, it was dusk, and based on the surrounding circumstances the jury was 

entitled to reject his explanation and infer criminal intent.  Additionally, Mr. Pickett saw 

Mr. Griffin throw one white bag or bucket over the fence from Inland's property to Ms. 

Million, who placed it in the bed of her truck; three white buckets were found in the bed 

of Ms. Million's truck about a mile after it left Inland; and the buckets had been taken 

from a trailer inside Inland's fenced area.  Considering all the evidence when viewed in 

the light most favorable to the State, and with all reasonable inferences drawn in the 

State's favor and interpreted most strongly against Mr. Griffin, permitted the jury to find 

he entered the fence with intent to commit a crime.  Accordingly, the evidence 

sufficiently supports his second degree burglary conviction.  

       Second, to prove third degree theft, the State had to show, beyond a reasonable 

doubt, that Mr. Griffin wrongfully obtained or exerted unauthorized control over the 

property of another (valued at $750 or less), with intent to deprive the other of such 

                                               5 

No. 29715-2-III  
State v. Griffin  

property.  RCW 9A.56.020(1)(a), .050(1)(a).  To wrongfully obtain or exert unauthorized 

control over the property of another means to take the property or have the property in 

one's possession, custody, or control and use it.  RCW 9A.56.010(22)(a).  

       Mr. Griffin argues the evidence was insufficient to prove he took the silverware or 

even knew it was in Ms. Million's truck.  He does not dispute the value of the silverware.  

But just as the evidence supports a finding Mr. Griffin intended to take the silverware, it 

supports a finding he actually took it.  He was seen passing a white bag or bucket over the 

fence to Ms. Million, who put it in her truck bed, and the two were arrested nearby with 

stolen white buckets of silverware in the truck bed.  Given all, the evidence sufficiently

permitted the jury to find Mr. Griffin guilty of third degree theft beyond a reasonable 

doubt.

       Affirmed.  

       A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the 

Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 

2.06.040.

                                                    _______________________________
                                                    Brown, J.

WE CONCUR:

________________________________                    _______________________________

                                               6 

No. 29715-2-III  
State v. Griffin  

Korsmo, C.J.                                               Siddoway, J.

                                               7