FILED November 27, 2024 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. 39216-3-III Respondent, ) ) v. ) PUBLISHED OPINION ) LAUREL LYNNE HANLEY, ) ) Appellant. )
FEARING, J. — In 1975, the Washington State Legislature separated the legal
constructs of accessory before the fact from accessory after the fact. The legislature
placed the concept of accessory before the fact in RCW 9A.08.020 and labeled one’s
assistance to the principal before the crime’s completion as accomplice liability. The
legislature inserted the notion of accessory after the fact in RCW 9A.76.050 and branded
one’s aid to the principal after the crime as rendering criminal assistance. State v. Budik,
173 Wn.2d 727, 272 P.3d 816 (2012); State v. Anderson, 63 Wn. App. 257, 261, 818 P.2d
40 (1991).
This severance of legal theories controls the outcome of this appeal. A jury
convicted appellant Laurel Hanley of being an accomplice to Kimberly Parsley’s crimes No. 39216-3-III, State v. Hanley
of second degree burglary and third degree theft. Assuming the State presented evidence
sufficient to convict Hanley of knowingly aiding Parsley with her criminal episode, the
evidence avails only as to assistance after completion of the crimes. The State did not
charge Hanley with rendering criminal assistance. We reverse her two convictions based
on accomplice liability.
FACTS
The prosecution of Laurel Hanley arises from Kimberly Parsley’s June 19, 2020
burglary of a remote Stevens County property and the purloining of a family heirloom
from the property’s barn. The State claims Hanley acted as an accomplice to Parsley. A
security camera video, shown to the jury, captured extracts of actions taken by Parsley at
the rural, rustic property. The video, divided into six short segments, contains gaps in
Parsley’s conduct from one slice to another slice. Each video lasts between five to
twenty-three seconds.
Laurel Hanley and Kimberly Parsley are acquaintances. The State presented no
evidence as to the closeness of the two women’s relationship. The record does not show
that Hanley knew of any propensities of Parsley to steal or knew of any criminal history
of Parsley.
The burgled property, owned by the Britschgi family, lies off Burnt Valley Road
outside of charming Chewelah. The Britschgi family moved into the property’s residence
in 1969. The residence sits at the end of a long driveway, one hundred yards from the
2 No. 39216-3-III, State v. Hanley
main road. The Britschgi mother and father raised two daughters and one son at the
residence. The father had served as a military airplane mechanic during World War II.
The mother lived in the home until 2019, when she died. The father predeceased the
mother. No one has resided in the home since the death of the mother.
After the death of the mother, the son, Richard Britschgi, installed a security
system around the house. Richard resides in San Juan Capistrano, California. The
security system included motion sensitive cameras interspersed throughout the property.
The system sent a notification to Richard’s phone when it sensed a motion. Richard
could then view what the cameras recorded and hear audio from the recording.
Near 7:30 p.m., on June 19, 2020, Kimberly Parsley and Laurel Hanley traveled to
the Britschgi family property on Burnt Valley Road. The pair traveled in Hanley’s Ford
Focus, with Hanley in the passenger seat and Parsley driving. Parsley parked the vehicle
behind the house. The first segment of the security camera video begins with the last
yards of travel by the Focus and the parking of the car by Parsley.
The second fragment of video shows Kimberly Parsley, adorning blonde and pink
hair, outside the Ford Focus and walking to the Britschgi residence’s back door. Laurel
Hanley remained seated in the Ford Focus passenger seat. Parsley rapped on the house’s
back door and peered into an adjacent window. The third video fraction shows Parsley
continuing to look intently through the back window and later walking off camera. The
fourth video section, a five-second section, pictures Hanley sitting alone in the Focus.
3 No. 39216-3-III, State v. Hanley
The fifth security camera video subdivision, running six seconds, depicts
Kimberly Parsley walking along the driver’s side of the Ford to the back of the car while
carrying a green coat. Laurel Hanley still sits in the passenger seat. The front of the car
blocks the spectator’s view of the car’s rear and trunk, but Parsley appears to attempt to
open the back hatch. This fifth video sector ends with Parsley walking to the driver’s
side of the Ford while stating: “How the f--- do.” PE-1E 00:05-00:06. We do not know
the remainder of Parsley’s vulgarized sentence recorded on the fifth fragment. We do not
know what, if any, response Hanley gave to Parsley’s remark. None of the recording
sections capture Hanley talking. The sixth and final video portion shows Parsley driving
the car away from the residence.
Stevens County Sheriff’s Detective Michael Gilmore testified that he heard, on
one of the video slices, Kimberly Parsley asking Laurel Hanley about a key or other way
to access the back of the Ford Focus. The State mentions this testimony in its appellate
brief. The sound on the video segments does not confirm this testimony. Detective
Gilmore also averred at trial that one can hear, on the surveillance footage, Hanley
warning Parsley “not to do this.” Report of Proceedings (RP) at 113. The video
segments do not confirm this warning being given.
While off camera and between the third and fourth video segments, Kimberly
Parsley entered a barn separate from the home and took the Britschgi father’s World War
II uniform hanging on a hook in the barn. The green coat one sees on the fifth video slice
4 No. 39216-3-III, State v. Hanley
is the military uniform. The State presented no evidence that Laurel Hanley knew in
advance that Parsley intended to take any object from the property, let alone the uniform.
Richard Britschgi, through information-age technology and from his location in
California, saw some of the activities of Kimberly Parsley at the Burnt Valley Road
residence during the evening of June 19, 2020. He called Stevens County law
enforcement. Deputy Sheriff Eric Peterson traveled to the Britschgi property. He found
nobody present.
Richard Britschgi called Stevens County law enforcement again late that night.
Britschgi again saw, from the security cameras, movement at the Stevens County
residence. At 12:30 a.m., Deputy Sheriff Eric Peterson responded again. Other law
enforcement officers joined him. On arrival at the Burnt Valley Road property, the
officers saw a person rushing to a truck and one person already seated in the truck.
Laurel Hanley’s Ford Focus was not present. Kimberly Parsley, the female with pink and
blonde hair already seated in the truck, told officers of the presence of controlled
substances in the truck. Officers seized the truck and obtained a search warrant to search
the car. The officers found a World War II military jacket, security system cameras, and
drugs in the truck. The burglars had removed security cameras. Officers arrested Parsley
and her male companion. Hanley was not present at the Britschgi property that night.
Months later after looking at the video footage from 7:30 p.m. on June 19, Stevens
County Sheriff Sergeant Michael Gilmore connected Laurel Hanley to the Ford Focus
5 No. 39216-3-III, State v. Hanley
through the license plate number on the car. Gilmore spoke to Hanley on November 5,
2020. Hanley insisted she never exited the Ford Focus. She asserted that she did not
approve of Kimberly Parsley’s conduct and that she had told Parsley that the two needed
to leave the property. When Gilmore asked Hanley what Parsley removed from the
property, Hanley answered: a green uniform. Hanley added that, when Parsley brought
the uniform to the car, she objected to the uniform being taken.
PROCEDURE
The State charged Laurel Hanley as an accomplice to second degree burglary and
to third degree theft. The jury convicted Hanley of both crimes.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
On appeal, Laurel Hanley challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to convict her
of both second degree burglary and third degree theft as an accomplice. She also
challenges the imposition of a victim penalty assessment of $500 at sentencing. Since we
reverse the convictions, we do not address the latter argument.
Laurel Hanley contends that the State’s evidence, confirmed by the video snippets,
only established her presence in the car when Kimberly Parsley pilfered the military coat.
Hanley argues that she gave no assistance to Parsley, a prerequisite to accomplice
liability.
The State first responds that Laurel Hanley knew, when Kimberly Parsley drove
Hanley’s car to the rural Britschgi family property, that Parsley planned to burgle the
6 No. 39216-3-III, State v. Hanley
uniform. The State adds that, although no direct testimony established Hanley’s
knowledge, a reasonable jury could infer this knowledge from testimony presented and
the videos viewed. According to the State, Detective Michael Gilmore’s testimony
confirms this knowledge, particularly Gilmore’s assertion that Hanley told Parsley: “not
to do this.” RP at 113.
Secondarily, the State contends that, assuming Laurel Hanley did not know the
intentions of Kimberly Parsley when Parsley parked the car behind the Britschgi home,
Hanley knew of Parsley’s objective when Parsley returned to the car with the coat, which
obviously did not belong to Parsley. Then Parsley complained, as heard on the fifth
video segment, of an inability to open the back hatch of the Ford Focus. Hanley took no
steps to prevent Parsley from placing the uniform into the Focus. Hanley likely assisted
Parsley in opening the back of the car. The jury could conclude by the video that Hanley
did not instruct Parsley to return the coat to the barn. Thereafter, Hanley continued to
allow Parsley use of her car to drive from the property.
In summary, the State argues that Laurel Hanley knew of Kimberly Parsley
stealing the military coat before Parsley completed the crime and Hanley knew at the
same time that Parsley needed her car to accomplish the crime. In so arguing, the State
misperceives the nature of accomplice liability and the time at which one completes a
crime.
7 No. 39216-3-III, State v. Hanley
Before addressing the sufficiency of evidence, we analyze the difference between
accomplice liability and rendering criminal assistance. We then isolate the respective
times of completion of the burglary and theft.
Accomplice Liability and Rendering Criminal Assistance
A person is guilty of committing a crime by another if she is an accomplice to the
commission of the crime. State v. Allen, 178 Wn. App. 893, 903, 317 P.3d 494 (2014),
reversed on other grounds by State v. Allen, 182 Wn.2d 364, 369, 341 P.3d 268 (2015).
Under Washington statute, a person acts as an accomplice to a crime if:
(a) With knowledge that it will promote or facilitate the commission of the crime, he or she: (i) Solicits, commands, encourages, or requests such other person to commit it; or (ii) Aids or agrees to aid such other person in planning or committing it.
RCW 9A.08.020(3)(a). Note that the statute employs verbs that describe actions
preceding the crime, not conduct that helps the offender after he or she commits the
crime. When one assists or prompts the offender to perpetrate the crime, one is not guilty
of any crime called aiding and abetting, but instead guilty of the same crime committed
by the offending principal.
Assisting an offender after completion of the crime constitutes a distinct crime.
State v. Anderson, 63 Wn. App. 257, 261 (1991). The accessory after the fact does not
8 No. 39216-3-III, State v. Hanley
garner accomplice liability for the crime committed by the offender. Under Washington
law, one instead commits the crime of rendering criminal assistance when:
As used in RCW 9A.76.070, 9A.76.080, and 9A.76.090, a person “renders criminal assistance” if, with intent to prevent, hinder, or delay the apprehension or prosecution of another person who he or she knows has committed a crime . . . , he or she: (1) Harbors or conceals such person; or (2) Warns such person of impending discovery or apprehension; or (3) Provides such person with money, transportation, disguise, or other means of avoiding discovery or apprehension; or (4) Prevents or obstructs, by use of force, deception, or threat, anyone from performing an act that might aid in the discovery or apprehension of such person; or (5) Conceals, alters, or destroys any physical evidence that might aid in the discovery or apprehension of such person; or (6) Provides such person with a weapon.
RCW 9A.76.050 (emphasis added). The statute incorporates verbs that reference conduct
after completion of the crime.
The legislature enacted RCW 9A.76.050 as part of the adoption of the current
criminal code in 1975. LAWS of 1975, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 260, § 9A.76.050. The crime of
rendering criminal assistance replaced the then-existing concept of serving as an
accessory after the fact. State v. Budik, 173 Wn.2d 727, 736, 272 P.3d 816 (2012); 13A
SETH A. FINE & DOUGLAS J. EDNE, WASHINGTON PRACTICE: CRIMINAL LAW § 1801, at
366 (2d ed. 1998); LAWS of 1975, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 260. The State charged Laurel
Hanley with accomplice liability for burglary and theft, not with the distinct crime of
rendering criminal assistance.
9 No. 39216-3-III, State v. Hanley
Completion of Crimes
Because of the distinction between accomplice liability and rendering criminal
assistance after the fact, we move to pinpoint when “after the fact” begins. We address
the time at which Kimberly Parsley respectively completed the crimes of second degree
burglary and third degree theft.
second degree burglary
Three statutes govern second degree burglary. RCW 9A.52.030 declares:
A person is guilty of burglary in the second degree if, with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, he or she enters or remains unlawfully in a building other than a vehicle or a dwelling.
In turn,
A person “enters or remains unlawfully” in or upon premises when he or she is not then licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged to so enter or remain.
RCW 9A.52.010 (2). RCW 9A.52.010(3) reads:
“Premises” includes any building, dwelling, structure used for commercial aquaculture, or any real property.
The accused need not commit a crime inside the trespassed building. The defendant need
only enter a building with the intent to commit a crime to be guilty of burglary. State v.
Brown, 25 Wn. App. 2d 634, 641, 528 P.3d 370 (2023).
When Kimberly Parsley entered the barn with the intent of stealing any object, she
performed the first step necessary to commit the crime of second degree burglary.
10 No. 39216-3-III, State v. Hanley
Parsley engaged in a continuing crime until she exited the barn, at which time she
completed the crime. The State presented no evidence that Laurel Hanley encouraged the
crime before Parsley left the building.
third degree theft
We review two statutes delimiting the crime of third degree theft. RCW
9A.56.050(1) asserts:
A person is guilty of theft in the third degree if he or she commits theft of property or services which (a) does not exceed seven hundred fifty dollars in value.
In turn, RCW 9A.56.020(1)(a) expresses:
(1) “Theft” means: (a) To wrongfully obtain or exert unauthorized control over the property . . . of another . . . with intent to deprive him or her of such property.
The defendant commits theft when she exerts control over an item absent permission of
one who holds an interest in the item. State v. Jacobson, 74 Wn. App. 715, 719, 876 P.2d
916 (1994).
In State v. Britten, 46 Wn. App. 571, 731 P.2d 508 (1986), the State charged Paul
Roger Britten with third degree theft for taking jeans from a store. Britten argued on
appeal that insufficient evidence supported his conviction because the State did not
establish that he completed the crime of third degree theft. The State only proved that he
attempted the crime. A Bon Marche security guard found Britten in a dressing room
11 No. 39216-3-III, State v. Hanley
wearing five pairs of Bon pants under his own pants. Britten had removed the price tags
from the pants before accomplishing the physics defying feat of adorning six pairs of
pants. Britten argued he did not commit theft because he had not departed the store or
even the dressing room when caught. This court concluded that Britten had wrongfully
obtained or exerted unauthorized control over the property belonging to the store by the
time of his apprehension. Britten’s removal of the tags and donning of the pants
conflicted with the store’s ownership of the jeans.
Kimberly Parsley wrongfully appropriated or assumed unauthorized control over
the Britschgi father’s military coat when she removed the uniform from its hanger on the
barn wall and traveled toward the exit of the building.
Sufficiency of Evidence
We have laid the foundation needed to intelligently confront Laurel Hanley’s
assignment of error based on insufficient evidence to convict her of accomplice liability
resulting from Kimberly Parsley’s second degree burglary and third degree theft. Due
process requires that the State prove each element of a crime charged beyond a
reasonable doubt. State v. O’Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91, 105, 217 P.3d 756 (2009). When
reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court views the evidence in
the light most favorable to the State and will affirm a defendant’s conviction if any
rational jury could have found the essential elements of the crime charged beyond a
reasonable doubt. State v. Finch, 137 Wn.2d 792, 835, 975 P.2d 967 (1999); State v.
12 No. 39216-3-III, State v. Hanley
Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992). A claim of insufficiency admits the
truth of the State’s evidence and all inferences reasonably drawn therefrom. State v.
Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201 (1992). We defer to the finder of fact on issues of witness
credibility, conflicting testimony, and the persuasiveness of the evidence. State v.
Andrews, 172 Wn. App. 703, 707, 293 P.3d 1203 (2013); State v. Davis, 182 Wn.2d 222,
227, 340 P.3d 820 (2014).
Circumstantial evidence holds the same probative value as direct evidence. State
v. Sprague, 16 Wn. App. 2d 213, 233, 480 P.3d 471 (2021). Courts in this state follow
the federal rule that circumstantial evidence need only be sufficient to convict a
reasonable jury of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Zunker, 112 Wn. App. 130,
135, 48 P.3d 344 (2002).
Under an accomplice liability theory, the State must prove the substantive crime
was committed and the accused acted with knowledge that he or she was aiding in the
commission of the offense. State v. Lazcano, 188 Wn. App. 338, 363, 354 P.3d 233
(2015). The defendant must possess knowledge that her actions will promote or facilitate
the particular crime. State v. Bauer, 180 Wn.2d 929, 943, 329 P.3d 67 (2014); State v.
Luna, 71 Wn. App. 755, 760, 862 P.2d 620 (1993).
Mere presence with knowledge of the criminal activity does not support a finding
of accomplice liability, but one aids by being present and ready to assist. State v. Truong,
168 Wn. App. 529, 541, 277 P.3d 74 (2012); State v. Collins, 76 Wn. App. 496, 501–02,
13 No. 39216-3-III, State v. Hanley
886 P.2d 243 (1995). Knowing assistance of another in the commission of a crime is a
predicate for accomplice liability. In the Matter of the Welfare of Wilson, 91 Wn.2d 487,
492, 588 P.2d 1161 (1979); State v. D.H., 31 Wn. App. 454, 459, 643 P.2d 457 (1982). A
defendant is not guilty as an accomplice unless he has associated with and participated in
the venture as something he wished to happen and which he sought by his acts to make
succeed. State v. J–R Distributors, Inc., 82 Wn.2d 584, 593, 512 P.2d 1049 (1973); State
v. Luna, 71 Wn. App. 755, 759 (1993).
Even if one’s presence could be deemed encouragement to commit a crime, the
law does not deem this mold of encouragement sufficient. In the Matter of the Welfare of
Wilson, 91 Wn.2d 487, 492 (1979); State v. D.H., 31 Wn. App. 454, 459 (1982). Assent
to the crime, without more, also does not impose accomplice liability. State v. Hoffman,
116 Wn.2d 51, 104, 804 P.2d 577 (1991); State v. Martinez, 105 Wn. App. 775, 786
(2001).
We review Washington case law to assist in resolving whether the State presented
sufficient evidence to convict Laurel Hanley with accomplice liability. In the Matter of
the Welfare of Wilson, 91 Wn.2d 487 (1979) serves as the lead Washington Supreme
Court opinion on accomplice liability. A group of boys fashioned a rope, tied the rope
around a tree, and strung the rope across a road to a golf course fairway. Some of the
boys occasionally pulled the rope taut across the road. The State charged the boys with
reckless endangerment despite the boys dropping the rope before a car reached it. Ronald
14 No. 39216-3-III, State v. Hanley
Wilson stood near his friends as they engaged in this mischief. The juvenile court
convicted Wilson based on accomplice liability. The juvenile court reasoned that Wilson
had rendered support and encouragement to the other boys by his presence. Wilson had
contributed to the atmosphere of tomfoolery. Wilson should have left the scene after he
saw the misconduct of his friends. The Court of Appeals summarily affirmed Wilson’s
conviction.
The Supreme Court reversed Ronald Wilson’s conviction. The court applied the
rule that mere presence does not suffice. The court reasoned that, even though a
bystander’s presence alone may encourage the principal actor in his criminal or
delinquent conduct, the presence does not render the bystander a participant in the guilt.
The court wrote:
It is not the circumstance of “encouragement” in itself that is determinative, rather it is encouragement plus the intent of the bystander to encourage that constitutes abetting. We hold that something more than presence alone plus knowledge of ongoing activity must be shown to establish the intent requisite to finding Wilson to be an accomplice in this instance.
In the Matter of the Welfare of Wilson, 91 Wn.2d 487, 492 (1979).
Oodles of Washington Court of Appeals decisions discuss accomplice liability,
some of which decisions contain parallel facts. In State v. Anderson, 63 Wn. App. 257
(1991), Rodney Anderson was acquitted of first degree robbery but convicted of
rendering criminal assistance in the first degree. Anderson and Mark Wilson arrived at a
15 No. 39216-3-III, State v. Hanley
tavern in a car driven by Anderson. Wilson, while Anderson remained in the car, entered
a nearby store and robbed the clerk while displaying a toy gun that looked real. Wilson
rushed back to the car and told Anderson he had robbed the store. Anderson drove the
car from the tavern. Later, when a law enforcement officer stopped the car, Anderson
admitted he knew that Wilson committed a robbery but he lacked advance knowledge of
Wilson’s intent to do so. On appeal, Anderson argued he could not even be convicted of
first degree rendering criminal assistance because he lacked knowledge in advance that
Wilson possessed a toy gun. Thus, the decision’s legal discussion lacks relevance, but
the acquittal on the charge of accomplice liability bolsters Laurel Hanley’s assignment of
error.
In State v. Luna, 71 Wn. App. 755 (1993), Armondo Terrill Luna appealed his
conviction as an accomplice for taking a motor vehicle without permission. Luna and a
group of boys engaged in vehicle prowling. The group began the evening in a white
Camaro driven by Chris Lauriton. Lauriton stopped the Camaro, exited, and walked
away. Luna and other occupants also departed the Camaro, but stood near the car.
Suddenly, a red pickup truck, driven by Lauriton, sped past the group. The other boys
returned to the Camaro, with Luna driving, and followed the truck onto the freeway,
where the truck pulled onto the shoulder. Lauriton got out of the truck and back behind
the wheel of the Camaro, while Luna moved to the back seat. Darrick Brown replaced
Lauriton as the driver of the truck. Brown drove the truck recklessly and damaged it.
16 No. 39216-3-III, State v. Hanley
Chris Lauriton had stolen the red pickup truck. Armondo Luna admitted he knew,
by the time he drove the Camaro and followed the pickup, that Lauriton had stolen the
pickup. The juvenile court reasoned that Luna assisted in stealing the truck and
convicted him as an accomplice for theft of a truck.
In State v. Luna, this court reversed the conviction of Armando Luna. No
evidence showed that Luna knew that Chris Lauriton intended to steal a truck before the
theft occurred. Luna’s following the truck in the Camaro did not promote or facilitate the
theft since the theft had been completed earlier. Luna transported Darrick Brown to the
location where Brown transferred to and drove the truck. But the State possessed no
evidence that Luna knew Brown would drive the truck until Brown did so.
In State v. Robinson, 73 Wn. App. 851, 872 P.2d 43 (1994), this court also
reversed, for insufficient evidence, a juvenile’s conviction based on accomplice liability.
Chima Robinson drove his mother’s car with three friends in the back seat and James
Baker in the front passenger seat. Robinson reached an intersection and stopped the car
at a red light. When the light turned green, Robinson slowly proceeded through the
intersection. Without warning, Baker opened the front passenger door and jumped out of
the car. The door remained opened. Robinson pulled the car over to the side of the road.
Robinson could see Baker with a girl, and they looked like they were struggling. Baker
grabbed the purse of the girl, took the purse back to the car, and sat again in the passenger
seat. Robinson saw the purse and panicked. He concluded he could not abandon his
17 No. 39216-3-III, State v. Hanley
friend Baker, so he drove the car. He told Baker he was stupid for what he had done and
demanded Baker remove the purse from the car. Baker threw the purse out the window.
Robinson later dropped Baker at a friend’s house and did not report the incident to the
police.
On appeal, the State argued that James Baker did not finish his theft of the purse
until Chima Robinson helped him escape from the scene. This court agreed with
Robinson that, assuming Robinson committed any crime, he committed rendering
criminal assistance, for which the State did not charge him. Robinson had not
participated in the theft. Baker’s taking of the purse ended before he returned to the car.
In State v. Martinez, 105 Wn. App. 775, 786 (2001), this court reversed a
conviction of accomplice to possession of a cocaine with the intent to deliver. Law
enforcement arranged a controlled buy with Christopher Tate being the assigned
purchaser of the drug. Tate arranged for his supplier, Ramon Gomez, to deliver the
cocaine to Tate’s apartment building. Gomez arrived at the apartment complex as a
passenger in a car driven by Rafael Martinez. Law enforcement officers met Gomez and
searched both Gomez and Martinez. Police found an ounce of cocaine in Gomez’s
pocket and $279 in cash on Martinez. Martinez carried no drugs. The record held no
evidence that Martinez had participated in any criminal activity of Gomez. The State
presented no admissible evidence that Martinez knew Gomez to bear any drugs. This
18 No. 39216-3-III, State v. Hanley
court applied the rule that mere presence at the scene, even with assent to criminal
activity, did not create accomplice liability.
State v. Asaeli, 150 Wn. App. 543, 208 P.3d 1136 (2009), arises from a shooting
death occurring during a confrontation between two rival youthful groups. The State
charged the shooter and two of his colleagues with varying degrees of murder. The two
colleagues denied any formal association with the shooter. They also denied any
knowledge that the shooter carried a gun or intended to assault any member of a rival
organization. This court reversed the conviction of Darius Vaielua, one of the colleagues.
This court agreed that the State provided insufficient evidence that Vaielua, despite his
connections to the shooter, knew of or participated in any plan to assault a rival. Thus,
the court applied the rule that mere presence does not prove complicity in a crime.
Vaielua had even driven the shooter to the location of the killing and knew that some
members of his unstructured organization intended to confront the decedent.
During the prosecution of Laurel Hanley, the evidence established that Kimberly
Parsley traveled to the property using Hanley’s car. Hanley sat in the passenger seat.
The State presented no evidence that Hanley knew in advance of Parsley’s intent to steal.
The State presented no evidence of Hanley possessing knowledge of Parsley having
committed any earlier crime, let alone burglary or theft. Trial testimony failed to even
establish that Hanley knew to where Parsley wished to drive the car before the two
19 No. 39216-3-III, State v. Hanley
arrived at the Britschgi property. The State unearthed no conversations between Hanley
and Parsley leading to the crimes.
The State suggests that Laurel Hanley must have known, in advance of Kimberly
Parsley driving the Ford Focus, that Parsley intended to go to the Britschgi property and
enter a building without permission. One typically does not allow an acquaintance to
borrow one’s car and then ride in the car without knowing the destination and the purpose
of the trip. But a similar comment could be said about Darius Vaielua driving Benjamin
Asaeli to a gathering of youth groups or Rafael Gomez driving Ramon Gomez to a drug
sale.
Laurel Hanley never testified to any understanding about Kimberly Parsley’s
reason for entering the Britschgi property contrary to burglarizing the home or barn.
Rafael Gomez and Darius Vaielua also did not testify to any understanding about the
purpose of each’s ferrying the principal to a crime. Requiring Hanley to assume the
burden of producing evidence of her anticipation of a legal purpose for entering the
Britschgi land borders on improperly shifting the burden of proof to Hanley.
Laurel Hanley stayed in the Ford Focus while Kimberly Parsley knocked on the
backdoor of the Britschgi house. After discovering no one was home, Parsley went to the
separate garage and took an army uniform. Parsley brought the uniform back to the car
where Hanley sat, and she asked Hanley for access to the trunk. The State never
presented testimony that Hanley wished for Parsley to take the military uniform. Parsley
20 No. 39216-3-III, State v. Hanley
did not keep the uniform in Hanley’s Ford Focus for long, but instead transferred the coat
to the truck in which she rode hours later.
The State emphasized that Laurel Hanley must have answered Kimberly Parsley’s
question about the means of opening the back of the Focus. Nevertheless, the record
does not confirm that Parsley posed this question. Neither the video series nor trial
testimony established Hanley’s response to Parsley’s loutish question.
Even if we concluded that the jury could draw a reasonable inference that Laurel
Hanley assisted Kimberly Parsley in opening the back of the car, such inference does not
aid the State. Just as James Baker had completed his forcible grabbing of the purse
before his returned to Chima Robinson’s car, Parsley completed her burglary and theft
before she returned to Hanley’s car. Assuming Hanley committed a crime, she
committed an uncharged crime.
The State asserts, based on the testimony of Detective Michael Gilmore, that
Laurel Hanley told Kimberly Parsley that pilfering the uniform was wrong and that she
instructed Parsley not to steal the uniform. The video snippets do not confirm that
Hanley uttered these words. Regardless, assuming Hanley spoke disapproval to Parsley,
the utterances bolster Hanley’s position. The remarks would confirm that Hanley gave
no encouragement to Parsley before Parsley completed the crimes. Any permission to
use Hanley’s Ford Focus thereafter to leave the Britschgi property lacks relevance.
21 No. 39216-3-III, State v. Hanley
The State forwards State v. Clark, 190 Wn. App. 736, 361 P.3d 168 (2015) to
support Laurel Hanley’s convictions. This court, in Clark, concluded that the State
presented sufficient evidence to convict Nathaniel Clark of being an accomplice to an
attempted bank robbery and a successful bank robbery. Clark had earlier known that
John Reynolds stole a phone at a T-Mobile store. Clark also knew that Reynolds had
earlier robbed a bank. Reynolds gave Clark some of the ill-gotten funds. Clark later
acted as the getaway driver for a second bank robbery. The State presented evidence that
Clark parked down the street from the bank with the engine running. Clark did not park
in the available spaces near the bank. After exiting the bank, Reynolds ran to the car and
entered the car while wearing black clothing, gloves, sunglasses, and carrying a bag.
Clark drove away with the tires squealing. The cell phone that Reynolds stole earlier
from the T-Mobile Store and the cell phone registered to Clark lay in the same location as
an attempted bank robbery and a later successful robbery. The stolen phone and Clark’s
phone communicated at the same time during the attempted and accomplished robberies.
We adjudge the Washington decisions we have already discussed more apt in
resolving Laurel Hanley’s appeal than State v. Clark. No evidence suggests that Hanley
knew of any criminal history of Kimberly Parsley. Hanley did not drive a getaway car.
Hanley did not follow Parsley from one crime to the next crime.
22 No. 39216-3-III, State v. Hanley
CONCLUSIONS
We vacate Laurel Hanley’s convictions for second degree burglary and third
degree theft and remand for dismissal of the charges. A ruling by an appellate court that
the State presented insufficient evidence requires dismissal of the prosecution with
prejudice. State v. Asaeli, 150 Wn. App. 543, 570 (2009).
_________________________________ Fearing, J.
WE CONCUR:
______________________________ Lawrence-Berrey, C.J.
______________________________ Pennell, J.