State Of Washington v. Charles E. Washington

• Court: Court of Appeals of Washington
• Decided: December 17, 2013
• Docket: 44653-7
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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CHARLES E. WASHINGTON, UNPUBLISHED OPINION

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