Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two
February 25, 2025
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 57929-4-II
Respondent,
v.
LUIS NATANEL REYES, aka LUIS N. UNPUBLISHED OPINION MARAVILLA REYES,
Appellant.
CRUSER, C.J.—Luis Reyes appeals his convictions for (1) delivery of a controlled
substance, (2) second degree introduction of contraband, and (3) conspiracy to deliver a controlled
substance. Reyes argues that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for all three
charges, and that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting Reyes’ statements on the prison
phone calls because they were not adequately authenticated. We hold that sufficient evidence
supported Reyes’ convictions, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the
transcripts into evidence. Accordingly, we affirm Reyes’ convictions.
FACTS
I. Background Incident
In late November and early December 2021, many inmates at the Olympic Corrections
Center (OCC) tested positive for drug use; some required medical attention; and one inmate was No. 57929-4-II
found unresponsive and required Narcan. The severity of the drug problem prompted OCC staff
to initiate an investigation into the source of contraband.
During the investigation, an informant notified Department of Corrections (DOC) staff that
inmate Luis Reyes was potentially involved in introducing contraband, including controlled
substances, into the OCC. The DOC assigned Investigator Brittnee Rooney to monitor Reyes’
phone calls, because she is bilingual in English and Spanish, and many of Reyes’ calls contained
Spanish. Reyes’ calls were made using his personal identification number (PIN) and were
frequently made to his sister, Patricia Lemus, whose number was on file as his emergency contact.
Based on Reyes’ calls from November 25, 2021 to December 6, 2021, Rooney determined that at
least one delivery of contraband had already occurred in late November 2021, and that another
delivery was being planned.
Over the course of multiple calls to Lemus, Reyes instructed her on where, how, and when
to deliver the substances and contraband. Reyes used code words like “chocolate,” “nighttime,”
“water,” “orange,” and “chew” to instruct Lemus on which types of drugs and contraband to
include in the delivery. Verbatim Rep. of Proc. (VRP) at 1211-12, 1233-34. “Water” can refer to
heroin or methamphetamine, “orange” refers to suboxone, and “chew” refers to chewing tobacco.
Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 7; VRP at 680-81, 1206, 1218-19. Reyes also specified the quantity of the
substances he requested. For example, Reyes directed Lemus to “go by the store and maybe two,
three cans of that—of that stuff.” VRP at 1211-1212. Reyes later clarified that the “stuff” was
“chew” but he did not want to discuss that on the phone. Id. Reyes also instructed Lemus on how
to deliver the contraband into the prison. Reyes told Lemus where along the perimeter of the prison
fence line to throw the package—near a greenhouse, and he told her how to conceal the package
2 No. 57929-4-II
by painting it to blend in with the ground. Reyes’ phone conversations also indicated that Reyes
coordinated with another unknown inmate who “works in the morning” and would retrieve the
drugs where they landed. Id. at 1211. And Reyes discussed logistical issues related to drug prices,
reimbursement, and travel to the OCC with Lemus.
Reyes’ conversations with Lemus indicated that at least one successful delivery had
occurred. Reyes told Lemus that “everything was good” and that he would send her the money
today. Id. at 1198. Reyes also prompted future deliveries saying that “the same thing can be done.
. . . [t]he same way each time” and offered suggestions for how to improve future deliveries. Id. at
1198-99. For example, Reyes told Lemus to “Tell him that when he goes, not to go round and
round so much” and to wait a little while and then come back to where Lemus would be hiding on
the side of the road where no one could see her. Id. at 1199.
Then on December 14, 2021, Reyes told his brother, Fernando Reyes,1 to “[d]o it tonight”
or “tomorrow,” and explained that someone else would show him “exactly where she did it” the
previous time. Id. at 1249. After this call, OCC staff moved Reyes out of the Hoh Unit of the prison
where he had been living into segregation in a separate unit, the Ozette Unit, while DOC and local
law enforcement waited for the delivery to occur.
On the morning of December 16, 2021, OCC staff observed a gold Cadillac idling in a
ditch in the vicinity of the prison. Reyes’ phone calls to Lemus indicated that she may drive a
Cadillac (“[T]he Cadillac is yours now.” Id. at 1201.), so the gold Cadillac got the attention of an
OCC staff member. The OCC staff member approached the car and found the driver, Dongelique
Spillers, slumped over in the running vehicle. The vehicle was registered to Lemus. Shortly after
1 Because Fernando shares a surname with the appellant, we refer to him by his first name.
3 No. 57929-4-II
the vehicle was discovered, Fernando emerged from the woods near the OCC and was taken into
custody by officers.
After finding the gold Cadillac, OCC staff initiated a lockdown during which inmates were
allowed to use the common bathroom. OCC staff then transferred the inmates to another facility.
During the evacuation, OCC staff checked each bathroom to ensure they were clear of inmates.
Staff discovered a plastic bag containing suboxone strips, tobacco, heroin, and methamphetamine
in a toilet in the common bathroom. Prison staff conduct hourly walkaround searches of the
facilities, including the bathrooms. Staff did not find drugs in the toilet during the previous
walkaround.
OCC staff testified that it was unusual to find that quantity and variety of drugs in the
facility. Suboxone typically comes in strips which are cut up into tenths before being sold. The
suboxone strips found in the Hoh Unit bathroom and had not been cut into tenths.
As part of the investigation, investigators executed a warrant to search Reyes’ CashApp
account. Several payments between $200 and $500 were sent to Reyes’ account between
November and mid-December 2021. One of the payments had a message stating “for Bishop.” Id.
at 1046. Bishop was one of the inmates who was found to be under the influence of drugs in late
November 2021.
Finally, Lemus’ phone records showed movement of her phone consistent with having
travelled to the OCC on November 21, and 26-27, 2021. These dates roughly correspond with the
dates that investigators believed the previous drug deliveries into the OCC took place, based on
Reyes’ phone calls with Lemus.
4 No. 57929-4-II
The State charged Reyes with delivery of a controlled substance and second degree
introduction of contraband on the theory that Reyes was an accomplice to his siblings. The State
also charged Reyes with conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance. The case proceeded to a jury
trial.
II. Trial
At trial, the State’s witnesses testified consistently with the above facts.
As the basis of its case, the State sought to admit certified translated transcripts of recorded
prison phone calls attributed to Reyes pertaining to the alleged drug deliveries. Prior to trial, Reyes
objected to admission of the phone call recordings and transcripts arguing that it was impossible
for the State to authenticate them where there was no identified speaker or date. The court reserved
the issue for trial.
The parties discussed the admissibility of the phone call recordings and transcripts outside
of the presence of the jury. During the hearing, Rooney testified that she accessed the calls for Luis
Reyes using his unique DOC identification number. Rooney was asked to target calls made to
Lemus’ phone number because that number was associated with conversations related to the
introduction of drugs into the facility. Rooney knew the number belonged to Lemus because
Lemus was listed as Reyes’ emergency contact using that number. Each call that is pulled by an
investigator has a file number which includes the date and time that the call was made as well as
the phone number the call was made to. The conversations were in both English and Spanish. All
but two of the conversations were between a man and a woman. In the conversations between two
men, both men referred to the same person as their sister. After reviewing the phone calls, Rooney
5 No. 57929-4-II
interviewed Reyes. During the brief interview, Rooney recognized Reyes’ voice as the voice in
the phone calls.
Based on this information, the trial court ruled that while the State authenticated the calls
as to Reyes, the court could not admit the phone calls in their entirety because the State had not
established who Reyes was talking to in the calls. Reyes’ statements from the phone calls were
read into the record. At the close of trial, Reyes moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that the
State presented insufficient evidence of delivery of drugs or conspiracy to deliver drugs. After
hearing argument on the matter, the court denied the motion.
The jury convicted Reyes on all three charges. After the verdict, Reyes moved for a new
trial, citing improper admission of the phone call transcripts into evidence on the grounds that they
were not properly authenticated. The trial court determined that “[t]here was no prejudice to the
defendant” and denied the motion. Id. at 1427. Reyes was sentenced to a total confinement of 90
months with 12 months on community custody.
DISCUSSION
I. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
We hold that the evidence was sufficient to find Reyes guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
on all counts. Reyes orchestrated the delivery of controlled substances into the OCC through
coordinated efforts with Lemus, Fernando, and an unknown inmate, satisfying the elements of
delivery of controlled substances, second degree introduction of contraband, and conspiracy to
deliver controlled substances.
6 No. 57929-4-II
A. Legal Principles
Whether evidence is sufficient to support a conviction is a constitutional question that we
review de novo. State v. Rich, 184 Wn.2d 897, 903, 365 P.3d 746 (2016). The test for sufficiency
of the evidence is “ ‘whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond
a reasonable doubt.’ ” Id. (emphasis omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v.
Green, 94 Wn.2d 216, 221, 616 P.2d 628 (1980) (plurality opinion)). We assume that the State’s
evidence is truthful, and we deem both direct and circumstantial evidence to be equally reliable.
State v. Ozuna, 184 Wn.2d 238, 248, 359 P.3d 739 (2015).
B. Delivery of a Controlled Substance and Introduction of Contraband
i. Legal Principles
To convict on delivery of a controlled substance, the State must prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that the defendant knowingly delivered a controlled substance. State v. Evans, 80 Wn. App.
806, 814, 911 P.2d 1344 (1996); RCW 69.50.401.2 Delivery is the actual or constructive transfer
from one person to another of a substance. Former RCW 69.50.101(i) (2020). Constructive
delivery is “ ‘the transfer of a controlled substance either belonging to the defendant or under his
direct or indirect control, by some other person or manner at the instance or direction of the
defendant.’ ” State v. Campbell, 59 Wn. App. 61, 63, 795 P.2d 750 (1990) (quoting Davila v. State,
664 S.W.2d 722, 724 (Tex. Cr. App. 1984) (interpreting a parallel provision of Texas code that is
also derived from the Uniform Controlled Substances Act)).
2 RCW 69.50.401 was amended in 2022. Because this amendment does not impact our analysis, we cite to the current version of the statute. See LAWS OF 2022, ch. 16, § 84.
7 No. 57929-4-II
To convict on second degree introduction of contraband, the State must prove that the
defendant “knowingly and unlawfully provide[d] contraband to any person confined in a detention
facility or secure facility under chapter 71.09 RCW with the intent that such contraband be of
assistance in an escape or in the commission of a crime.” RCW 9A.76.150(1). It is a crime for any
person serving a sentence in any state correctional institution to knowingly possess or carry any
narcotic drug or controlled substance while in the institution. RCW 9.94.041.3
A person is guilty of a crime committed by the conduct of another person with which he is
an accomplice. RCW 9A.08.020(1), (2)(c). A person is an accomplice of another if he or she
“[s]olicits, commands, encourages, or requests” the other person to commit the crime or “[a]ids or
agrees to aid such other person in planning or committing it” and they know that these actions will
promote of facilitate the commission of this crime. RCW 9A.08.020(3).
ii. Application
Reyes argues that the evidence failed to prove that Reyes constructively delivered drugs
because there was no evidence that Reyes owned or controlled the drugs found in the Hoh Unit
bathroom. But Reyes’ convictions were predicated on a theory of accomplice liability. Thus, Reyes
could be convicted so long as he requested that someone else deliver drugs into the prison or aided
them in planning to deliver or delivering drugs knowing that this action would facilitate the
delivery. RCW 9A.08.020(3). Here, sufficient evidence proved that Reyes aided Fernando and
Lemus in delivering drugs and contraband to the prison.
3 RCW 9.94.041 was amended in 2022. Because this amendment does not impact our analysis, we cite to the current version of the statute. See LAWS OF 2022, ch. 16, § 3.
8 No. 57929-4-II
The evidence permitted a reasonable trier of fact to find that, at Reyes’ direction, Fernando
delivered the drugs and contraband found in the Hoh unit bathroom. Over many phone
conversations, Reyes asked Lemus, in code, to deliver drugs to the prison. Reyes also helped
Lemus plan the delivery by telling her which types of drugs to include in the delivery and what
quantity. Reyes also instructed Lemus on how to deliver the contraband into the prison. Reyes told
Lemus where along the perimeter of the prison fence line to throw the package and how to conceal
the package by painting it to blend in with the ground. Reyes also referred to another unknown
inmate who would retrieve the packages of drugs from where they were thrown over the fence.
Reyes’ conversations indicated that Reyes and Lemus had been involved in at least one successful
delivery prior to December 16. Reyes told Lemus that “everything was good” and that he would
send her the money today. VRP at 1198. Reyes also said that “the same thing can be done. . . .
[t]he same way each time” and offered suggestions for how to improve future deliveries. Id. The
facts that Lemus’ cell phone location data showed movement consistent with having travelled to
the OCC on dates corresponding with the suspected drug deliveries and that Reyes received
significant CashApp payments during the time period in question support the conclusion that
successful deliveries occurred.
Fernando became involved in this scheme during a phone conversation in which Reyes told
him to “[d]o it tonight” or “tomorrow” and explained that someone else would show him “exactly
where she did it” the previous time. Id. at 1249. Less than two days later, OCC staff found
Fernando, who was not on the approved visitors list, in the woods outside the prison walking to
Lemus’ vehicle. Hours later, as the Hoh unit was being evacuated, drugs of the type that Reyes
requested were found in the communal bathroom. This evidence is sufficient to prove that, at
9 No. 57929-4-II
Reyes’ request, Fernando delivered drugs to an unknown inmate in the manner that Reyes and
Lemus had tested during previous deliveries.
Reyes argues that, even assuming that Fernando threw drugs over the fence, there is no
evidence that the drugs were delivered to someone within the prison. But the evidence supports
the existence of an unknown third person who retrieved the drugs. In Reyes’ conversations with
Lemus he references another inmate who “works in the morning” and would find the drugs. Id. at
1211. Moreover, the fact that the drugs were promptly found and moved to the Hoh Unit bathroom,
although Reyes was in segregation, supports the existence of another, unknown inmate involved
in the delivery.
Reyes contends that the drugs found in the Hoh unit bathroom could have been delivered
by a different drug operation. But we must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the State.
State v. Homan, 181 Wn.2d 102, 106, 330 P.3d 182 (2014). Here, the evidence supports the
reasonable inference that the drugs had been recently delivered to the prison. During the hourly
walkaround searches, prison staff found no contraband in the bathrooms. And, when prison staff
found the drugs in the toilet, the suboxone strips were still intact and the other drugs had not yet
been parceled out for distribution. A reasonable trier of fact could find that the drugs and
contraband found in the Hoh Unit bathroom were delivered by Fernando at Reyes’ direction.
C. Conspiracy
A conviction of a criminal conspiracy requires an agreement between two or more persons
to commit the crime, as well as a substantial step taken in pursuance of the agreement by any one
of them. State v. Williams, 131 Wn. App. 488, 496, 128 P.3d 98 (2006); RCW 9A.28.040(1). For
10 No. 57929-4-II
conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance, at least three persons must be involved because
delivery itself requires two parties. State v. McCarty, 140 Wn.2d 420, 426, 998 P.2d 296 (2000).
“An agreement can be shown by a ‘concert of action, all the parties working together
understandingly, with a single design for the accomplishment of a common purpose.’ ” State v.
Smith, 65 Wn. App. 468, 471, 828 P.2d 654 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting
State v. Casarez-Gastelum, 48 Wn. App. 112, 116, 738 P.2d 303 (1987)). Preparation can be a
substantial step where it furthers the ability of the conspirators to carry out the agreement. State v.
Dent, 123 Wn.2d 467, 477, 869 P.2d 392 (1994).
Reyes argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that Reyes agreed with three or
more people to deliver contraband. Reyes specifically contends that no conspiracy could exist
because there was no evidence that Fernando agreed to deliver controlled substances nor that he
took a substantial step in furtherance of the agreement because there was no direct evidence that
Fernando possessed drugs. We disagree.
Sufficient evidence proved that Reyes, Fernando, Lemus, and an unknown inmate inside
the OCC agreed to deliver drugs and contraband into the prison. Over the phone, Reyes requested
that Lemus and Fernando deliver drugs to the prison. Reyes also explained that another inmate
would retrieve the drugs after they had been thrown over the fence. While planning future
deliveries with Fernando and Lemus, Reyes indicated that previous deliveries had been
successfully accomplished.
Reyes contends that there was no evidence that Fernando took a substantial step because
there was no direct evidence that Fernando ever possessed drugs. But a conspiracy is established
11 No. 57929-4-II
at the time that any conspirator takes a substantial step in pursuance of the agreement, not a
substantial step toward the commission of the crime. RCW 9A.28.040(1). Thus, a telephone
conversation planning the crime is a substantial step for conspiracy. See Dent, 123 Wn.2d at 477.
Here, the evidence established that Lemus, Fernando, and Reyes planned to deliver controlled
substances over multiple phone calls.
Moreover, sufficient evidence established the existence of an agreement and a substantial
step taken in furtherance of that agreement because, as discussed above, the evidence supported a
finding that Fernando actually delivered the drugs that were found in the Hoh Unit bathroom.
Accordingly, the evidence is sufficient to sustain Reyes’ conspiracy to deliver a controlled
substance conviction.
II. ADMISSIBILITY OF THE PHONE CALLS
We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted Reyes’ statements
from the prison phone calls, as Reyes’ participation in the phone call was properly authenticated
through PIN usage, voice identification, and corroborating contextual details.
We review the trial court’s decision on the authenticity of evidence for an abuse of
discretion. State v. Williams, 136 Wn. App. 486, 499, 150 P.3d 111 (2007). “A trial court abuses
its discretion when its decision is manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds or
for untenable reasons.” Id.
Authentication of evidence under ER 901 “ ‘merely requires some evidence which is
sufficient to support a finding that the evidence in question is what its proponent claims it to be.’ ”
State v. Payne, 117 Wn. App. 99, 106, 69 P.3d 889 (2003) (quoting United States v. Jimenez Lopez,
12 No. 57929-4-II
873 F.2d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1989)). The proponent “ ‘need not rule out all possibilities inconsistent
with authenticity or conclusively prove that evidence is what it purports to be; rather, the proponent
must provide proof sufficient for a reasonable juror to find the evidence is what it purports to be.’ ”
State v. Andrews, 172 Wn. App. 703, 708, 293 P.3d 1203 (2013) (quoting State v. Thompson, 777
N.W.2d 617, 624 (2010)).
B. Application
Reyes argues that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting Reyes’ statements from
the prison phone calls because Reyes’ participation in the calls was not properly authenticated. We
disagree.
First, Reyes contends that Rooney’s brief contact with Reyes was insufficient to reliably
identify his voice. However, Rooney was familiar with the voice in the calls after listening to more
than 20 calls multiple times, and she verified that Reyes’ voice matched the voice in the calls
during an in-person interview.
Next, Reyes contends that, because inmates can share PINs, the calls made using his PIN
might not have been made by him, and no witnesses with personal knowledge of the calls testified
about their authenticity. But the State is not required to rule out all possibilities inconsistent with
admissibility. Id. Here, the circumstances surrounding the calls support a finding that Reyes was
using his own PIN. The calls were made to his sister, Lemus (who was his emergency contact) and
all but two of the conversations were between a man and a woman. On one occasion where a man
answered the phone, both the caller and the recipient referred to the same person as their sister,
indicating that the call was between Reyes and his brother, Fernando. The calls were made in both
English and Spanish, the languages in which Reyes is fluent. And Rooney confirmed that the
13 No. 57929-4-II
callers’ voice matched Reyes’ voice during her conversation with him. This evidence supports the
conclusion that Reyes was the speaker in the recordings. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse
its discretion.
CONCLUSION
The State presented sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find Reyes guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt of delivery of controlled substances, second degree introduction of
contraband, and conspiracy to deliver controlled substances. The evidence demonstrated that
Reyes coordinated with Lemus, Fernando, and an unknown inmate to deliver drugs and contraband
into the OCC. And the trial court acted within its discretion in admitting Reyes’ statements from
the prison phone calls because the evidence established that the statements were attributable to
Reyes. We affirm.
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040,
it is so ordered.
CRUSER, C.J. We concur:
MAXA, J.
PRICE, J.