State of Washington v. Eliodoro Salseda-Castaneda
This text of State of Washington v. Eliodoro Salseda-Castaneda (State of Washington v. Eliodoro Salseda-Castaneda) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
FILED MAY 1, 2018 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) No. 35051-7-III ) Respondent, ) ) v. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) ELIODORO SALSEDA-CASTANEDA ) aka ELIODORO SALCEDO, ) ) Appellant. )
PENNELL, A.C.J. — Eliodoro Salseda-Castaneda appeals his conviction for felony
violation of a no-contact order. We affirm.
FACTS 1
On March 7, 2016, Mr. Salseda-Castaneda was arrested on an outstanding warrant
by a community custody officer (CCO) for the Department of Corrections. At the time of
his arrest, Mr. Salseda-Castaneda was at an abandoned home, located approximately
98 feet from the apartment of his estranged girlfriend. Under the terms of a no-contact
order, Mr. Salseda-Castaneda was prohibited from coming within 1,000 feet of his
girlfriend’s residence or person.
1 Because Mr. Salseda-Castaneda challenges the sufficiency of the State’s trial evidence, we construe the facts in the light most favorable to the State. State v. Kintz, 169 Wn.2d 537, 551, 238 P.3d 470 (2010). No. 35051-7-III State v. Salseda-Castaneda
After his arrest, Mr. Salseda-Castaneda waived his right to silence and made a
statement. He admitted he knew about the no-contact order prohibiting him from
contacting his estranged girlfriend. However, Mr. Salseda-Castaneda claimed to be
unaware that his girlfriend resided at the nearby apartment.
At Mr. Salseda-Castaneda’s trial for felony violation of a no-contact order, the
State presented testimony from the owner of the apartment occupied by Mr. Salseda-
Castaneda’s estranged girlfriend. The owner testified that he had originally rented the
apartment to both Mr. Salseda-Castaneda and his girlfriend about three years prior to trial.
The owner further testified that Mr. Salseda-Castaneda lived in the apartment for most of
the past three years and that he had most recently seen Mr. Salseda-Castaneda at the
apartment approximately one week prior to Mr. Salseda-Castaneda’s arrest.
Mr. Salseda-Castaneda also testified at trial. He claimed he had been in the area of
his old apartment to meet with some friends. Once he saw the CCO, he hid in a building
he knew was abandoned. Mr. Salseda-Castaneda claimed he did not know whether his
estranged girlfriend (who was also the mother of his children) still lived in his old
apartment. He said he was no longer talking to his girlfriend and thought she had moved.
Although Mr. Salseda-Castaneda claimed he was trying to abide by the terms of his no-
contact order, he acknowledged that he had violated the terms of the order on prior
2 No. 35051-7-III State v. Salseda-Castaneda
occasions to see his children.
A jury convicted Mr. Salseda-Castaneda of felony violation of a no-contact order.
He now appeals.
ANALYSIS
Sufficiency of the evidence
Mr. Salseda-Castaneda claims the State presented insufficient evidence to prove he
knowingly violated the terms of his no-contact order. Specifically, Mr. Salseda-
Castaneda argues the evidence failed to show he knew he was within 1,000 feet of his
estranged girlfriend’s residence.
We are unswayed by Mr. Salseda-Castaneda’s sufficiency argument. The State
presented overwhelming evidence showing that Mr. Salseda-Castaneda knew his
girlfriend had previously lived in the apartment at issue in this case. Indeed, Mr. Salseda-
Castaneda was an original party to the rental agreement. The State also presented
sufficient circumstantial evidence that Mr. Salseda-Castaneda continued to know his
estranged girlfriend lived at the same apartment up until the offense conduct date. Most
notable was the apartment owner’s testimony that Mr. Salseda-Castaneda was regularly at
the apartment, including the week prior to his arrest. While Mr. Salseda-Castaneda
testified that he did not know whether his estranged girlfriend continued to live at his old
3 No. 35051-7-III State v. Salseda-Castaneda
apartment, the jury was entitled to discredit this statement. The State satisfied its burden
of proof.
Prosecutorial misconduct
Mr. Salseda-Castaneda argues the italicized comments below, made by the
prosecutor in his closing and rebuttal argument, constituted misconduct:
What does make a lot of sense is that [Mr. Salseda-Castaneda] knew good and well that his girlfriend that he had a child in common with was living in the apartment that he himself had moved into with her just about three years ago and lived there all the time. . . . I’m going to argue the defendant’s testimony on this point was not credible in this case. . . . [The apartment owner] testified and the defendant admitted that they had both signed the [rental agreement] when they moved in three years ago. They lived there together in the past. .... Now he’s saying, oh, I didn’t know she was there that day. I was just down the street. I just happened to be passing by. It’s pure coincidence. I just happened to be passing by and I seen the DOC officers. So I ran in there to hide. How much sense does that make? We know [the apartment owner] told us that she was there that day. She was there the day that happened. The defendant testified he’s always trying to see his kids despite the no contact order. The only thing that makes sense is that he knows good and well that she [was] still living there. As a matter of fact, I don’t even have to show that she was there that day. All I have to show is that she was living there, that it was her residence and he was aware of that fact. Did he tell you about something that happened where he all of the sudden had some reason to believe that she’d moved after living there for three years? No. He never testified that she’d told him that she had moved. ....
4 No. 35051-7-III State v. Salseda-Castaneda
I would argue to you, ladies and gentlemen, that a reasonable person would conclude, after looking at all the evidence and talking to the eleven other reasonable people on the jury, of course, he knew. Of course, he knew she was living there. He moved in with her to this apartment. He never said that she told him that she had moved out or anything like that. I would ask you to return a verdict of guilty. Thank you.
2 Report of Proceedings (Dec. 20, 2016) at 84, 86-88, 97 (emphasis added). No objection
was made during trial to the prosecutor’s statements.
Mr. Salseda-Castaneda first argues the prosecutor improperly commented on his
right to silence. We disagree. Mr. Salseda-Castaneda testified at trial. The State was
therefore entitled to point out the holes in Mr. Salseda-Castaneda’s testimony, including
his lack of any explanation for why he thought his estranged girlfriend no longer lived at
her long-term apartment. See State v. McKenzie, 157 Wn.2d 44, 59-60, 134 P.3d 221
(2006).
Next, Mr. Salseda-Castaneda claims the prosecutor’s arguments improperly shifted
the burden of proof. Burden shifting can happen when the prosecutor argues that the jury
can only acquit if it believes the defendant’s testimony. In re Pers. Restraint of
Glasmann, 175 Wn.2d 696, 713-14, 286 P.3d 673 (2012). But that is not what happened
here. The prosecutor never suggested that the verdict rested on the jury’s assessment of
Mr. Salseda-Castaneda’s credibility.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State of Washington v. Eliodoro Salseda-Castaneda, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-washington-v-eliodoro-salseda-castaneda-washctapp-2018.