State Of Washington v. Benjamin I. Roy
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 70720-5-1 Respondent, DIVISION ONE
v.
BENJAMIN ISAAC GRANT ROY, UNPUBLISHED
Appellant. FILED: January 20. 2015
Cox, J. — A jury convicted Benjamin Roy of first degree robbery of a financial institution. Roy appeals and argues that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the State to elicit testimony that police officers obtained a sample of his deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) by means of a search warrant. He also contends that insufficient evidence supports his conviction because the evidence failed to establish that the branch of Chase Bank where the robbery occurred is a financial institution within the meaning of RCW 9A.56.200. Because sufficient circumstantial evidence supports Roy's conviction and he fails to show any other error, we affirm.
On November 29, 2011, a man entered the Lake Stevens branch of Chase Bank just before closing. The man wore a dark hooded sweatshirt, inside out, with the hood pulled over his head, a bandana covering his face, and gloves. He yelled "Nobody fucking move" while holding an object covered in black plastic that appeared to be a gun and waving it from side to side. The man moved toward Farah Siko, a lead teller and the only person at a teller station at the time. The man pointed the object at Siko and demanded all of the cash in her drawer. Siko activated an emergency switch under the counter to notify law enforcement and gave the man all the cash in her top drawer, approximately $3,000. After taking the cash, the man fled the bank on foot.
Around that same time, David Look was driving through the intersection in front of the Chase Bank branch when a man wearing a hooded sweatshirt darted into the street from the direction of the bank. Look had to slam on his brakes to avoid hitting the man. The hood fell off and Look briefly saw the man's face and described him as a white male, in his late twenties or early thirties with sandy hair.
Police officers arrived at the bank shortly after the robbery. They called for assistance from a K-9 unit. The dog followed a scent from the bank door to a nearby field consistent with the suspect's path as indicated by witnesses. The dog traced the scent to a discarded black hooded sweatshirt and a $100 bill that police officers found in the field. Near these items, police officers found fresh bicycle tracks. They did not locate a suspect.
When they returned the following day to search the area in the daylight, police officers recovered a garden hose nozzle shaped like a gun and covered in a black plastic. The police sent the items retrieved to the Washington State Crime Laboratory for DNA testing.
About a year after closing the case, Lake Stevens police officers learned from the crime lab that DNA from the evidence pertaining to the Chase Bank robbery was tied to DNA evidence collected during the course of an investigation into a later crime committed by Benjamin Roy. That crime was an attempted robbery of a nearby drugstore. Based on information about the DNA match, police officers obtained a search warrant to obtain a DNA sample from Roy. Tests comparing Roy's DNA with DNA extracted from the sweatshirt showed that Roy was a substantial contributor to the mixed sample of DNA and that the probability of a match was one in 1,000 individuals.
The State charged Roy with first degree robbery committed within and against a financial institution, in violation of RCW 9A.56.200(1 )(b). Based on the testimony of several bank employees and customers who witnessed the robbery, the testimony of police officers, a forensic scientist, and Look, and evidence of bank surveillance photographs taken during the commission of the robbery, the jury convicted Roy as charged. The court imposed a standard range sentence.
Roy appeals.
EVIDENCE OF WARRANT TO COLLECT DNA Before trial, the court granted Roy's motion in limine to exclude reference to his prior convictions and involvement in the subsequent attempted robbery of a drug store near the Chase Bank branch. The court also ruled that in order to explain how Roy became a suspect in the case approximately a year after the crime occurred, the State would be allowed to present limited testimony that a national DNA database was the means by which Roy was identified as a potential suspect, without mentioning his involvement in another crime. To this end, forensic scientist Mariah Low testified that she discovered that Roy was a potential contributor to the DNA extracted from the evidence by running the DNA through a database about a year after the incident. Low said she then provided Roy's name to law enforcement.
Detective Jerad Wachveitl testified that upon learning that Roy was a potential match, he obtained a search warrant to obtain a DNA sample from him. The detective said it was "normal procedure" to obtain a warrant because law enforcement may not "normally just walk up to people on the street and ask them to give you samples of DNA." Detective Wachveitl also said he did not give Roy the opportunity to consent before procuring the warrant.
Roy objected to the admission of evidence that the police obtained a warrant for a DNA sample. He argued that evidence about the warrant was neither relevant nor necessary because the defense did not dispute that the police obtained a DNA sample from him and submitted it for testing. Roy argued that the evidence led to a "prejudicial impact that something negative" led to the issuance of the warrant. But noting that the testimony would not disclose any information about Roy's later attempted robbery and that jurors probably knew that collecting DNA from an individual involves a legal procedure, the court overruled Roy's objection and allowed the testimony.
As he argued below, Roy contends that the testimony about the warrant was not relevant because "it was undisputed that Roy's DNA was collected." Roy also maintains that the prejudicial impact far outweighed any marginal relevance of the evidence and the evidence was inadmissible under ER 403. ER 403 provides, in relevant part, that, "[although relevant, evidence may be
excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice To warrant reversal, evidentiary error must be prejudicial.1 Roy claims that the testimony implied that the warrant was based on evidence of wrongdoing. He maintains that a juror "would reasonably recognize that a court had made an affirmative determination regarding Roy's guilt."
We disagree. It is unlikely that Roy suffered unfair prejudice under ER 403 because the jury learned that the police obtained a DNA sample by means of a warrant. Detective Wachveitl testified that the forensic scientist provided Roy's name as a potential contributor to the DNA after running the DNA through a database. He also testified that obtaining a warrant is normal procedure and that authorities cannot just ask people to give DNA without one. Most people understand that this is true. Roy does not challenge the admission of this testimony that clearly explained the basis for the warrant. The detective's testimony about the warrant explained the circumstances surrounding the warrant and did not reveal Roy's later crime under which the DNA match came to light. The reference to the warrant neither necessarily implied that Roy engaged in other misconduct nor suggested that the court that issued the warrant made any determination of guilt. Roy fails to establish unfair prejudicial error.
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE Roy claims insufficient evidence supports his conviction because the State failed to establish that he committed robbery against a financial institution. We again disagree.
1 State v. Benn. 161 Wn.2d 256, 268, 165 P.3d 1232 (2007).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State Of Washington v. Benjamin I. Roy (State Of Washington v. Benjamin I. Roy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.