FILED
J !!#
T OF APPEALS
DI VIS' QP' II
2013 DEC 17 AM 8: 5!
SW'k C, fSfflydKoili
BY
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGT '
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 44653 -7 -II
Respondent,
V.
CHARLES E. WASHINGTON, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
0
JOHANSON, A. C. J. — Charles E. Washington appeals his jury trial conviction for felony
violation of a post- conviction no- contact order, domestic violence, claiming the State failed to
present sufficient evidence to support his conviction. Because the State sufficiently proved
Washington' s conviction, we affirm.
FACTS
On May 29, 2012, Olympia Police Officers Shawn Lindros and Jason Watkins responded
to an anonymous complaint of a possible domestic disturbance at a residence. When the officers
arrived at the residence, Officer Lindros heard a male and female arguing inside. After Officer
Lindros knocked and announced his presence, he looked through a window into the house and
observed a female and a male, later identified as Shannon Nunn and Washington, exiting the
same room inside the residence. Nunn shouted at Washington and slowly walked toward the
front door; Washington ran to the back of the house. After Officer Lindros pursued and placed
Washington in wrist restraints, the officers determined a no- contact order prohibited Washington
No. 44653 -7 -II
from contacting Nunn. A court issued the order on September 28, 2011, it expires September 28,
2016, and Washington signed the order.
ANALYSIS
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
Washington argues the State offered insufficient evidence to prove he knowingly violated
the protection order. We disagree because the jury could have rationally concluded that
Washington was aware he was violating the protection order.
We review claims of insufficient evidence to determine whether, " after 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
draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor of the State and against the defendant.
Salinas, 119 Wn.2d at 201. A sufficiency challenge admits the truth of the State' s evidence and
all reasonable inferences from it. State v. Theroff, 25 Wn. App. 590, 593, 608 P. 2d 1254, aff'd,
95 Wn.2d 385, 622 P. 2d 1240 ( 1980). We leave credibility determinations to the fact finder and
do not review them on appeal. State v. Ca»zarillo, 115 Wn.2d 60, 71, 794 P. 2d 850 ( 1990).
To prove felony violation of a no- contact order, the State needed to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that Washington knew of the existence of a no- contact order and that he
knowingly violated that order. See RCW 26. 50. 110. A person acts knowingly if "he or she is
aware of a fact, facts, or circumstances or result described by a statute defining an offense."
RCW 9A.08. 010( 1)( b)( i).
A knowing violation of a no- contact order exists when, regardless of which party
contacted the other, the defendant maintains contact with the protected party. State v. Sise7nore,
2
No. 44653 -7 -II
114 Wn. App. 75, 78, 55 P. 3d 1178 ( 2002). In Sisemore, an officer observed Sisemore walking
down the street with. a woman he was prohibited from contacting by a no- contact order. 114 Wn.
App. at 76. Sisemore argued there was insufficient evidence to prove he knowingly violated the
no- contact order because there was no evidence to show he initiated the contact. Sisemore, 114
Wn. App. at 79. We held that RCW 26. 5 0. 110 does not require the State to prove which party
made the initial contact and affirmed Sisemore' s conviction. Sisemore, 114 Wn. App. at 78.
Here, the State offered sufficient evidence to convince any rational trier of fact that
Washington knew a no- contact order existed. The State offered a domestic violence no- contact
order that prohibited Washington from contacting Nunn, and Washington had signed the order.
The jury could have rationally concluded that Washington knew the no- contact order existed.
The State also offered sufficient evidence to convince any rational trier of fact that
Washington knowingly violated the no- contact order. Officers responded to a possible domestic
disturbance at a residence and heard male and female voices arguing inside. Officer Lindros
observed Nunn and Washington exit the same room within the house. Taking the evidence in the
light most favorable to the State, the jury could have rationally concluded that Washington and
Nunn were in contact from the time officers were dispatched to the time they arrested
Washington, and thus could have found that Washington knowingly. violated the no- contact
order because he maintained contact with Nunn.
While Washington argues that the State failed to prove who lived at the residence to
which police responded, and thus failed to prove who initiated the contact, Sisemore
demonstrates that proving who initiated the contact is not necessary to convict a defendant of
violating a no- contact order. 114 Wn. App. at 79. The State only needed to prove that the
3
No. 44653 -7 -II
defendant remained in contact with the protected party. Sisemore, 114 Wn. App. at 79. Like
Sisemore, where an officer' s observation of Sisemore and, the protected party walking down the
street together sufficiently showed that Sisemore knowingly violated the no- contact order, here
Officer Lindros' s observation of Washington and Nunn exiting the same room after hearing them
argue sufficiently showed that Washington knowingly violated his no- contact order.
Viewing the evidence most favorably to the State, Washington knew he was prohibited
from contacting Nunn, yet he chose to remain in a residence and argue with her. That is
sufficient to support the jury' s verdict. Accordingly, we affirm.
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the
Was Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW
2. 06. 040, it is so ordered.
r }
Johanson, A.C. J.
rd