.'; .'' - r " u.iivi •'"•.4 -
20IUUL2I A,-;iQ:34
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
No. 70428-1-1
Respondent,
DIVISION ONE
v.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
JAHAD V.D.HILL,
B.D. 04/18/95, FILED: July 21, 2014
Appellant.
Becker, J. — In this appeal from a juvenile court disposition finding Jahad
Hill guilty of attempted residential burglary, Hill challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence supporting the court's findings and conclusions. Because the evidence
is sufficient, we affirm.
FACTS
Based on evidence that Jahad Hill and two other young men attempted to
break into the home of Kent Wright, the State charged Hill with attempted
residential burglary.
At trial, Jim Beard testified that on October 31, 2012, he was remodeling a
house in Kent when he noticed Hill knocking on the door of a house across the
street. Beard had been working at the location for several months and had never
No. 70428-1-1/2
seen Hill in the area. He thought Hill was acting suspiciously because he refused
to look directly at Beard even though he could tell Beard was watching him.
Beard also saw two other young men walking down the street. Beard
looked away for a moment, and when he looked back, the three men had
disappeared.
About five minutes after the men disappeared, Kent Police Officer Paul
Peter arrived to investigate a glass break alarm at the house Beard had been
watching. The owner arrived a short time later. Officer Peter discovered that the
outer pane of a double pane window had been broken on the side of the house.
At the back of the house, "someone had tried to pry the screen off of the deck
area." It appeared the person who pried the screen had used gloves.
As Officer Peter walked around the house, Beard walked up and said, "he
had seen people hanging around [the house] that looked suspicious to him."
Beard "had seen three [people] all together" but could only describe the person
he saw at the front door. Beard described that person as wearing a fur hat with
ear flaps, a red shirt, and jeans with a tiger or a dragon on the back pockets.
Officer Peter radioed Beard's description and called for backup.
About 15 minutes later, a second officer arrived. While the officers spoke
with the homeowner, they received a call reporting a burglary just a few blocks
away at the home of Kent Wright.
-2-
No. 70428-1-1/3
Wright testified that he was home that day and set his alarm in a mode
that causes it to "chirp" when doors or windows are partially opened. The alarm
has a display panel that indicates which zone activated the alarm.
Wright testified that after taking a shower, he heard his alarm chirp. The
display panel indicated that the sensor on the rear sliding glass door had been
tripped. Wright "heard a lot of noise at the windows as if somebody was trying to
get in." He ran downstairs and yelled, "'Get the fuck out of here.'" He then
opened the blinds next to the sliding door and saw three young men in his
backyard. Two of them immediately took off running. The third stared at Wright
momentarily and then jumped over the fence. Wright called 911, describing the
third man as wearing a furry hat and jeans with a distinctive pattern on the back
pockets. The 911 operator told him that the police were already in the
neighborhood investigating another break-in. The police then broadcast Beard
and Wright's description of the suspects.
Timothy Kovich, a Kent School District employee, testified that he received
information describing the suspects and their possible involvement in burglaries
just north of Kent Meridian High School. Kovich began monitoring the security
cameras at Kent Meridian. Within minutes, he spotted three young men
matching the descriptions near a trail system north of the school. One suspect
was wearing a hat with ear flaps and pants with embroidery on the rear pockets.
Kovich watched as the suspects walked through the school parking lot and then
away from the school toward a main access road. At 12:35 p.m., approximately
-3-
No. 70428-1-1/4
30 minutes after police received the glass break alarm, Kovich reported his
observations of the suspects over police radio.
A security resource officer for the school responded to Kovich's report and
detained three suspects matching the descriptions in the school parking lot. He
immediately reported this information to dispatch.
Police then brought Beard and Wright to the school for a showup. Wright
identified Hill as one of three young men in his backyard. Beard identified Hill as
the person he saw knocking on the door of the house across the street from his
remodeling job.
Detective Craig Lamp interviewed Hill at the school. Hill said he had taken
the bus from his home to Kent Station and then another bus to Kent Meridian
High School where he intended to seek enrollment. Detective Lamp asked for
bus numbers and times, but Hill did not know either. Detective Lamp also asked
Hill if he had been with anybody that day, and he said he had been by himself
until he arrived at Kent Meridian High School.
The juvenile court found Hill guilty of the attempted residential burglary of
Wright's house. He appeals.
DECISION
Hill contends there is insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's
finding that he tried to break into Wright's home.
Evidence is sufficient if, after viewing it in the light most favorable to the
prosecution, any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the
-4-
No. 70428-1-1/5
crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Salinas. 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829
P.2d 1068 (1992). In reviewing a juvenile adjudication, we determine whether
substantial evidence supports the court's findings of fact and whether the findings
support the conclusions of law. State v. Alvarez, 105 Wn. App. 215, 220, 19
P.3d 485 (2001). A claim of insufficiency admits the truth of the State's evidence
and all reasonable inferences that reasonably can be drawn therefrom. Salinas,
119 Wn.2d at 201. We defer to the trier of fact on issues of conflicting testimony,
credibility of witnesses, and the persuasiveness of the evidence.
State v. Raleigh. 157 Wn. App. 728, 736-37, 238 P.3d 1211 (2010), review
denied. 170 Wn.2d 1029 (2011).
To find Hill guilty of attempted residential burglary, the juvenile court had
to find that, with intent to commit residential burglary, he or an accomplice took a
substantial step toward committing residential burglary. RCW 9A.28.020(1). A
person is guilty of residential burglary if, with intent to commit a crime against a
person or property therein, the person enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling
other than a vehicle. RCW 9A.52.025(1). A person is an accomplice if, with
knowledge that it will promote or facilitate the commission of the crime, he
encourages or aids another in committing it. RCW 9A.08.020(3)(a)(i) and (ii).
The word "aid" means all assistance whether given by words, acts,
encouragement, support, or presence. 11 Washington Practice: Washington
Pattern Jury Instructions: Criminal 10.51, at 217 (3d ed. 2008). A person
who is present at the scene and ready to assist by his or her presence is aiding
-5-
No. 70428-1-1/6
in the commission of the crime. State v. B.J.S., 140 Wn. App. 91, 98, 169 P.3d
34 (2007). Intent may be inferred where the circumstances indicate such intent
as a matter of logical probability. State v. Johnson. 159 Wn. App. 766, 774, 247
P.3d 11 (2011).
Hill contends there was insufficient evidence to conclude that he took a
substantial step toward committing residential burglary. He concedes the
evidence allowed an inference that someone triggered Wright's alarm and made
noise by Wright's window. He argues, however, that there was no evidence that
he was that person or that he was acting in concert with the other young men.
According to Hill, the evidence showed only that he was merely present at the
scene. He concludes, therefore, that the finding that he tried to break into
Wright's home is not supported by substantial evidence and the conclusion that
he took a substantial step toward committing residential burglary is not supported
by the findings. We disagree.
The juvenile court found in its written and incorporated oral findings that
Hill acted in concert with others. Substantial evidence supports this finding. The
evidence either established or supported reasonable inferences that Hill and the
other two young men attempted to enter a house near Wright's home only
minutes before entering Wright's backyard without permission. Beard testified
that around the time of the glass break alarm at the first house, Hill knocked on
the door of that house, acted suspiciously, and then suddenly disappeared with
the others. This evidence supported inferences that Hill actively participated in
-6-
No. 70428-1-1/7
an attempted burglary of the first house and that the three young men acted in
concert when they later attempted to open Wright's sliding glass door. This
evidence, together with Hill's flight from Wright's residence and subsequent lies
to police, supports the court's finding that Hill acted in concert with the others.
That finding in turn supports the court's conclusion that he took a substantial step
toward the burglary of Wright's home.
Hill next argues there was insufficient evidence to infer that he intended to
commit residential burglary, and even if criminal intent could be inferred, "the
criminal intent could be malicious mischief or criminal trespass, not burglary."
These arguments rest on a misapprehension of the law governing inferences and
the scope of our review:
Just because there are hypothetically rational alternative
conclusions to be drawn from the proven facts, the fact finder is not
lawfully barred against discarding one possible inference when it
concludes such inference unreasonable under the circumstances.
Nothing forbids a jury, or a judge, from logically inferring intent from
proven facts, so long as it is satisfied the state has proved that
intent beyond a reasonable doubt. ... An essential function of the
fact finder is to discount theories which it determines unreasonable
because the finder of fact is the sole and exclusive judge of the
evidence, the weight to be given thereto, and the credibility of
witnesses.... That the crime here charged is attempted burglary
does not change the analysis. Intent to attempt a crime also may
be inferred from all the facts and circumstances.... The role of the
appellate court is to determine whether or not any rational trier of
fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution, could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, all the
essential elements of the crime.
(Citations omitted.) State v. Bencivenqa. 137 Wn.2d 703, 708-09, 974 P.2d 832
(1999). Here, a rational trier of fact could have concluded beyond a reasonable
-7-
No. 70428-1-1/8
doubt that the multiple attempts to enter houses from concealed locations, the
suspects' flight, and Hill's dishonesty when interviewed by police supported an
inference of intent to commit burglary.
Finally, Hill contends the court improperly based its inference of intent on
an inapplicable statute. He notes that during closing arguments, the prosecutor
mentioned RCW 9A.52.040, which allows courts to infer criminal intent when a
person "enters or remains unlawfully in a building." (Emphasis added). Because
this statute does not apply to an attempted burglary, he concludes the court
improperly relied on the statute to infer his intent to commit a crime.
But the juvenile court never mentioned the statute in its ruling. Moreover,
after referring to the statute, the prosecutor pointed out that this case involved
attempted burglary and noted that there was a case-law basis for the court to
infer intent in attempted burglary:
Now, obviously, the State has charged the respondent in this
case with attempted residential burglary. So I wanted to also point
out that case law, your Honor, allows you to infer intent to commit a
crime against a person or property therein in attempt cases like this
one.
This was a correct statement of the law. See Bencivenqa, 137 Wn.2d at
709 (intent to attempt a crime "may be inferred from all the facts and
circumstances."). There was no error based on RCW 9A.52.040.
Given our disposition, we do not address Hill's arguments as to whether
reversal could result in the imposition of a lesser included offense.
Affirmed.
-8-
No. 70428-1-1/9
*•
WE CONCUR:
\\vW> m >rk)»>.wOiLi
-9-