r
1
f
1
FILED
1
JULY 23, 2015
j
I In the Office of the Clerk of Court
W A State Court of Appeals, Division III
II
,
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) No. 324354-111
)
Respondent, )
)
v. )
)
RAYMOND EDWARD CHANEY, III, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
I Appellant. )
BROWN, AC.J.- Raymond E. Chaney, III appeals his possession of a stolen
vehicle conviction. He incorrectly contends sufficient evidence does not exist showing
he knew the vehicle was stolen. We affirm.
FACTS
Mr. Chaney arrived at his cousin's automotive shop on the morning of November
23,2013 with an older Chevrolet Suburban, claiming it had broken down after he bought
it for $500. The vehicle had expensive rims and a stereo. Mr. Chaney claimed as part
of the purchase agreement, he had to return the rims and stereo to the owner/seller of
the vehicle and asked his cousin to help remove them. He then inconsistently told
another person at the shop he had bought the vehicle for $500 at an auction. The
vehicle's plates were missing. Suspicious, Mr. Chaney's cousin called the police. The
No. 32435-4-111
State v. Chaney
I police learned Ervin Schadler was the owner and had reported the vehicle stolen
between 1:00 and 2:00 a.m. the same morning.
I The State partly charged Mr. Chaney with possessing a stolen motor vehicle.
Mr. Schadler testified he did not sell the car to Mr. Chaney and did not give him
1 permission for him to drive it. A jury found Mr. Chaney guilty. He appealed.
I ANALYSIS
I
I
The issue is whether sufficient evidence supports Mr. Chaney's possession of a
stolen motor vehicle conviction. He contends the State failed to prove he had
knowledge the vehicle was stolen.
In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, our standard of review is "whether,
I1 after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact
could have found the essential elements of the charged crime beyond a reasonable
doubt." State v. Rempel, 114 Wn.2d 77, 82, 785 P.2d 1134 (1990). "A claim of
insufficiency admits the truth of the State's evidence and all inferences that reasonably
can be drawn therefrom." State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192,201,829 P.2d 1068 (1992).
Circumstantial evidence is considered to be as reliable as direct evidence. State v.
Myers, 133 Wn.2d 26, 38, 941 P.2d 1102 (1997).
RCW 9A.56.068 provides: "(1) A person is guilty of possession of a stolen vehicle
if he or she possess[es] a stolen motor vehicle." To prove that a defendant "possessed"
stolen property, the State must prove that the defendant possessed property with
knowledge that it was stolen. RCW 9A.56.140; State v. Plank, 46 Wn. App. 728, 731,
2
· No. 32435-4-111
State v. Chaney
731 P.2d 1170 (1987). Mere possession of recently stolen property is insufficient to
establish that the possessor knew the property was stolen. State v. Couet, 71 Wn.2d
I
773,775,430 P.2d 974 (1967). But possession of recently stolen property, coupled
f
~
i with any other circumstantial evidence tending to show guilt sufficiently proves
i knowledge. Couet, 71 Wn.2d at 775-76. The fact finder may reasonably infer
I
1
knowledge if "a reasonable person would have knowledge under similar circumstances."
State v. Womble, 93 Wn. App. 599, 604, 969 P.2d 1097 (1999).
Mr. Chaney was in possession of the stolen vehicle. He took it to his cousin's
automotive shop, claiming he bought it but needed the tires and stereo removed to
return to the seller. Later, Mr. Chaney told another person the vehicle was purchased
from an auction. But a very few hours passed between when the vehicle was reported
stolen and when Mr. Chaney possessed it. Lastly, Mr. Schadler testified he did not give
Mr. Chaney permission to drive his vehicle.
Viewing this evidence in a light most favorable to the State and being aware that
circumstantial evidence is considered as reliable as direct evidence, a reasonable
person could infer the vehicle was stolen based on Mr. Chaney's inconsistent
statements, the timeline of events, and Mr. Schadler's testimony denying permission for
Mr. Chaney to drive the vehicle. Thus, the State sufficiently proved Mr. Chaney had
knowledge the vehicle in his possession on November 23 was stolen, making that
evidence sufficient to support Mr. Chaney's conviction for possessing a stolen motor
vehicle.
3
No. 324354-111
State v. Chaney
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.
~)AL.&
Brown, A.C.J.
WE CONCUR:
Ko~f
4