FILED FEBRUARY 2, 2021 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STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) ) No. 36759-2-III Respondent, ) ) v. ) ) JASON ANTHONY DAVIS, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) Appellant. )
SIDDOWAY, J. —Jason Davis appeals convictions for residential burglary and theft
in the second degree, challenging the sufficiency of the State’s evidence to prove the
required intent. Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence and
permitted inferences were clearly sufficient. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Sarah Joplin and Daiquiri Rock are co-owners of the Seasoned House, an event
center located in Pullman. The business operates on the first floor of a building owned No. 36759-2-III State v. Davis
by the two women; the second floor of the building is private space that includes a
furnished bedroom apartment that is sometimes used by Ms. Rock.
Ms. Joplin traveled to the event center early in the morning of February 6, 2019, to
shovel snow. She initially noticed an unusual number of footprints in the snow, including
leading up the front stairs. She then noticed that a window to the left of the front door
was broken and a rug that belonged on the floor of the entry way had been tacked up over
the broken window opening.
The front door had no exterior key accessibility, so Ms. Joplin went to the back
door, which she entered using a key pad. Upon entering, she saw Jason Davis standing
directly across the room from her, looking at clocks on the wall and drinking a beer from
her refrigerator. Ms. Joplin introduced herself and asked Mr. Davis if he had an
appointment. Mr. Davis said he did; that “he was there to fix the clocks . . . to change the
batteries.” Report of Proceedings (RP) at 172. Ms. Joplin excused herself and went back
outside, where she phoned Ms. Rock to find out if she had given Mr. Davis permission to
be in the building. When Ms. Rock said she had not, Ms. Joplin called the police.
Two officers responded. Ms. Joplin let them into the building, and they located
Mr. Davis in the upstairs bedroom apartment, where they placed him under arrest. While
escorting Mr. Davis downstairs, one of the officers noticed that Mr. Davis had a ring that
was only partially on his finger. Upon arriving downstairs, the officer searched Mr.
Davis and found a plastic “baggy” in a pocket of Mr. Davis’s jeans that contained a set of
2 No. 36759-2-III State v. Davis
gold earrings with green and clear stones that turned out to be emeralds and diamonds.
The officer also searched Mr. Davis’s backpack. Officers showed Ms. Joplin the ring,
earrings, and a few other items found in Mr. Davis’s possession, and she recognized the
jewelry as belonging to Ms. Rock.
In walking through the building after Mr. Davis’s arrest, Ms. Joplin noticed that
many items were strangely out of place. Candles from a candelabra “had fallen out in the
basement, upstairs in the shower, kind of everywhere in the house,” furniture had been
stacked, food items had been consumed, and the glass from the broken out window had
been hidden under a rug. RP at 169-70. A drink had been made from blue curaçao, the
bottle of which was missing. The bottle was found several weeks later, behind a
temporary wall.
Mr. Davis was eventually charged with residential burglary, second degree theft,
and third degree malicious mischief. At a two day jury trial, Ms. Joplin testified to the
events of the morning of February 6 and identified Mr. Davis as the person she
encountered in her and Ms. Rock’s building. Ms. Rock identified her jewelry. The
responding officers testified. A jewelry store owner testified that Ms. Rock’s ring was
worth about $100 and the earrings were worth about $3,000.
Mr. Davis testified in his own defense. He testified that he entered the Seasoned
House after sitting on its porch for a while because it was “freezing outside and I didn’t
think I could handle it anymore.” RP at 265. He claimed not to know the building was a
3 No. 36759-2-III State v. Davis
residence. He would not concede that he broke the window, saying “I don’t know if the
window was—like the officer said, he had stepped on that glass. Those were perfectly
pieces of glass that would have been able to be put back in to the window. . . . [T]hey
were not broken.” RP at 265-66. When asked about the property found on his person,
Mr. Davis said, “I was going to take a picture and do an appraisal.” RP at 265. He said it
was not his intent to steal the ring, he just wanted to “take a picture of that ring and
compare it or appraise it to [his acquaintance] Mrs. Stone’s ring that she wears 24/7 that
looked exactly like that.” RP at 266.
Mr. Davis testified “when the person had seen [him] and called [him] a ghost
when she came in, the stuff was sitting next to [him] with the hammer.” RP at 268. Mr.
Davis said he took the jewelry “from the area where the clocks were not working to
upstairs.” Id. Mr. Davis said he was “not a hundred percent sure if” officers found the
earrings in his pocket. Id. When asked if the ring was on his finger, Mr. Davis said, “the
first time [he had] seen the ring it was on the ground.” Id.
The jury found Mr. Davis guilty as charged. He appeals.
ANALYSIS
Mr. Davis contends on appeal that the State presented insufficient evidence of
essential elements of residential burglary and second degree theft. He emphasizes
evidence of his “odd behaviors” while in the Seasoned House, suggesting that the
evidence indicates only that he “acted strangely.” Br. of Appellant at 6-7. He contends
4 No. 36759-2-III State v. Davis
the State failed to show that he intended to commit a crime inside the building as required
for the burglary charge because he “only intended to seek shelter during a cold winter
night.” Br. of Appellant at 2. He contends it failed to show that he intended to deprive
Ms. Rock of her earrings and ring as required for the theft charge, because he “intended
to take photos of the jewelry found on his person, and . . . made no attempt to leave to
remove property from the premises.” Id.
Due process requires the State to prove all elements of a crime beyond a
reasonable doubt. State v. Washington, 135 Wn. App. 42, 48, 143 P.3d 606 (2006). The
well settled test for sufficiency of the evidence is “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). All reasonable inferences from the evidence are drawn in favor of the State and
are interpreted most strongly against the defendant. Id.
“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). Burglary does not require an intent to commit a
specific crime; rather, it requires an intent to commit any crime against a person or
property. State v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
FILED FEBRUARY 2, 2021 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. 36759-2-III Respondent, ) ) v. ) ) JASON ANTHONY DAVIS, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) Appellant. )
SIDDOWAY, J. —Jason Davis appeals convictions for residential burglary and theft
in the second degree, challenging the sufficiency of the State’s evidence to prove the
required intent. Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence and
permitted inferences were clearly sufficient. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Sarah Joplin and Daiquiri Rock are co-owners of the Seasoned House, an event
center located in Pullman. The business operates on the first floor of a building owned No. 36759-2-III State v. Davis
by the two women; the second floor of the building is private space that includes a
furnished bedroom apartment that is sometimes used by Ms. Rock.
Ms. Joplin traveled to the event center early in the morning of February 6, 2019, to
shovel snow. She initially noticed an unusual number of footprints in the snow, including
leading up the front stairs. She then noticed that a window to the left of the front door
was broken and a rug that belonged on the floor of the entry way had been tacked up over
the broken window opening.
The front door had no exterior key accessibility, so Ms. Joplin went to the back
door, which she entered using a key pad. Upon entering, she saw Jason Davis standing
directly across the room from her, looking at clocks on the wall and drinking a beer from
her refrigerator. Ms. Joplin introduced herself and asked Mr. Davis if he had an
appointment. Mr. Davis said he did; that “he was there to fix the clocks . . . to change the
batteries.” Report of Proceedings (RP) at 172. Ms. Joplin excused herself and went back
outside, where she phoned Ms. Rock to find out if she had given Mr. Davis permission to
be in the building. When Ms. Rock said she had not, Ms. Joplin called the police.
Two officers responded. Ms. Joplin let them into the building, and they located
Mr. Davis in the upstairs bedroom apartment, where they placed him under arrest. While
escorting Mr. Davis downstairs, one of the officers noticed that Mr. Davis had a ring that
was only partially on his finger. Upon arriving downstairs, the officer searched Mr.
Davis and found a plastic “baggy” in a pocket of Mr. Davis’s jeans that contained a set of
2 No. 36759-2-III State v. Davis
gold earrings with green and clear stones that turned out to be emeralds and diamonds.
The officer also searched Mr. Davis’s backpack. Officers showed Ms. Joplin the ring,
earrings, and a few other items found in Mr. Davis’s possession, and she recognized the
jewelry as belonging to Ms. Rock.
In walking through the building after Mr. Davis’s arrest, Ms. Joplin noticed that
many items were strangely out of place. Candles from a candelabra “had fallen out in the
basement, upstairs in the shower, kind of everywhere in the house,” furniture had been
stacked, food items had been consumed, and the glass from the broken out window had
been hidden under a rug. RP at 169-70. A drink had been made from blue curaçao, the
bottle of which was missing. The bottle was found several weeks later, behind a
temporary wall.
Mr. Davis was eventually charged with residential burglary, second degree theft,
and third degree malicious mischief. At a two day jury trial, Ms. Joplin testified to the
events of the morning of February 6 and identified Mr. Davis as the person she
encountered in her and Ms. Rock’s building. Ms. Rock identified her jewelry. The
responding officers testified. A jewelry store owner testified that Ms. Rock’s ring was
worth about $100 and the earrings were worth about $3,000.
Mr. Davis testified in his own defense. He testified that he entered the Seasoned
House after sitting on its porch for a while because it was “freezing outside and I didn’t
think I could handle it anymore.” RP at 265. He claimed not to know the building was a
3 No. 36759-2-III State v. Davis
residence. He would not concede that he broke the window, saying “I don’t know if the
window was—like the officer said, he had stepped on that glass. Those were perfectly
pieces of glass that would have been able to be put back in to the window. . . . [T]hey
were not broken.” RP at 265-66. When asked about the property found on his person,
Mr. Davis said, “I was going to take a picture and do an appraisal.” RP at 265. He said it
was not his intent to steal the ring, he just wanted to “take a picture of that ring and
compare it or appraise it to [his acquaintance] Mrs. Stone’s ring that she wears 24/7 that
looked exactly like that.” RP at 266.
Mr. Davis testified “when the person had seen [him] and called [him] a ghost
when she came in, the stuff was sitting next to [him] with the hammer.” RP at 268. Mr.
Davis said he took the jewelry “from the area where the clocks were not working to
upstairs.” Id. Mr. Davis said he was “not a hundred percent sure if” officers found the
earrings in his pocket. Id. When asked if the ring was on his finger, Mr. Davis said, “the
first time [he had] seen the ring it was on the ground.” Id.
The jury found Mr. Davis guilty as charged. He appeals.
ANALYSIS
Mr. Davis contends on appeal that the State presented insufficient evidence of
essential elements of residential burglary and second degree theft. He emphasizes
evidence of his “odd behaviors” while in the Seasoned House, suggesting that the
evidence indicates only that he “acted strangely.” Br. of Appellant at 6-7. He contends
4 No. 36759-2-III State v. Davis
the State failed to show that he intended to commit a crime inside the building as required
for the burglary charge because he “only intended to seek shelter during a cold winter
night.” Br. of Appellant at 2. He contends it failed to show that he intended to deprive
Ms. Rock of her earrings and ring as required for the theft charge, because he “intended
to take photos of the jewelry found on his person, and . . . made no attempt to leave to
remove property from the premises.” Id.
Due process requires the State to prove all elements of a crime beyond a
reasonable doubt. State v. Washington, 135 Wn. App. 42, 48, 143 P.3d 606 (2006). The
well settled test for sufficiency of the evidence is “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). All reasonable inferences from the evidence are drawn in favor of the State and
are interpreted most strongly against the defendant. Id.
“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). Burglary does not require an intent to commit a
specific crime; rather, it requires an intent to commit any crime against a person or
property. State v. Bergeron, 105 Wn.2d 1, 4, 711 P.2d 1000 (1985). Intent to commit a
crime may be inferred when a person enters or remains unlawfully. State v. Cantu, 156
Wn.2d 819, 826, 132 P.3d 725 (2006); State v. Bishop, 90 Wn.2d 185, 188-89, 580 P.2d
5 No. 36759-2-III State v. Davis
259 (1978). By statute, a person who enters or remains unlawfully in a building may be
inferred to have acted with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein
“unless such entering or remaining shall be explained by evidence satisfactory to the trier
of fact to have been made without such criminal intent.” RCW 9A.52.040.
“[A] person is guilty of theft in the second degree if he or she commits theft of: (a)
Property or services which exceed(s) seven hundred fifty dollars in value but does not
exceed five thousand dollars in value, other than a firearm as defined in RCW 9.41.010 or
a motor vehicle.” RCW 9A.56.040. Theft is defined as “wrongfully obtain[ing] or
exert[ing] unauthorized control over the property or services of another or the value
thereof, with intent to deprive him or her of such property or services.” RCW 9A.56.020.
“Intent may be inferred from all the facts and circumstances surrounding the
commission of an act or acts.” Bergeron, 105 Wn.2d at 19. “Although intent may not be
inferred from conduct that is patently equivocal, it may be inferred from conduct that
plainly indicates such intent as a matter of logical probability.” Id.
The obvious problem with Mr. Davis’s claim of evidence insufficiency is that he
views the evidence in the light most favorable to himself, not the State. The State
presented evidence that he broke a window to enter a building without permission, rifled
through the building and upstairs apartment, was found with Ms. Rock’s ring and
valuable earrings on his person, and when confronted by the owner of the property, lied
about the reason he was present. The evidence was sufficient.
6 No. 36759-2-III State v. Davis
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.
_____________________________ Siddoway, J.
WE CONCUR:
_____________________________ Pennell, C.J.
_____________________________ Lawrence-Berrey, J.