FILED December 24, 2019 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STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) ) No. 36126-8-III Respondent, ) ) v. ) ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION THERISA MARRIE KNAPP, ) ) Appellant. )
SIDDOWAY, J. — Therisa Knapp appeals her conviction for first degree theft,
assigning error to the trial court’s ruling admitting bank records for which no foundation
was laid by a record custodian. The State concedes error. Although admissible evidence
supports theft of property having some value, the State does not address whether the
court’s error was harmless. Since we will not search the record ourselves for the
sufficiency of the admissible evidence, we grant the State’s request to remand the matter
for a retrial of the first degree theft charge. No. 36126-8-III State v. Knapp
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In September 2016, Therisa Knapp was charged in Okanogan County with first
degree theft. Adult Protective Services had made a referral that Therisa1 and her husband
Kenneth might have wrongfully exerted control over funds belonging to Kenneth’s
mother, Geraldine Knapp. Kenneth was charged with both first degree theft and forgery.
After her husband’s death in 2009, Geraldine had been able to live on her own, but
suffered from progressing dementia. In 2013, her daughter Vicki, who held a power of
attorney from Geraldine, became concerned about Geraldine living alone, and contacted
the New York Life Insurance Company (NY Life) to activate a long-term care policy
Geraldine had with the insurer. A nurse tasked with evaluating Geraldine agreed that she
should not be living alone, but Geraldine was adamant that she did not want anyone
living in the house with her.
Shortly thereafter, Geraldine executed a durable power of attorney to her sons
Kenneth and Danny, revoking Vicki’s power of attorney. In or about early 2014,
Geraldine broke her hip and began to depend on Therisa and Kenneth for care and
assistance. At the end of 2014 or the beginning of 2015, Therisa and Kenneth moved into
Geraldine’s home.
1 To avoid confusion, all members of the Knapp family will be referred to by first name. No disrespect is intended.
2 No. 36126-8-III State v. Knapp
After Therisa and Kenneth began living with Geraldine, it became increasingly
difficult for other family members, including grandchildren, to visit her, arrange for her
presence at family events, or even contact her. Chains and a padlock appeared on the
entry gate to her yard. In August 2015, one of Geraldine’s granddaughters called police
and asked them to check on her; it was at that point that other family members learned for
the first time that Therisa and Kenneth had moved Geraldine into a nursing home several
months earlier, in May.
Vicki initiated guardianship proceedings and, after being appointed guardian,
discovered that Geraldine’s assets had been dwindling rapidly, a couple of new credit
card accounts had been opened in Geraldine’s name, and a number of Geraldine’s
financial obligations had gone unpaid. Meanwhile, Adult Protective Services, which had
been in contact with Geraldine’s guardian ad litem, referred a concern to the Okanogan
County Sheriff, where it was assigned to Detective Deborah Behymer. The referral
ultimately resulted in the charges against Therisa and Kenneth.
Therisa and Kenneth both waived their right to a jury trial, and the prosecution of
both proceeded to a joint, two-day bench trial. The State’s first witness was Detective
Behymer, and early in her testimony the prosecutor had her identify and describe the
bank record exhibits whose admission is challenged on appeal. Detective Behymer in
each case briefly described the exhibits and testified that they were accurate copies of
documents that North Cascades National Bank (NCNB) produced in response to search
3 No. 36126-8-III State v. Knapp
warrants. When the exhibits were then offered, Kenneth’s lawyer raised the following
objections, which were joined in by Therisa’s lawyer:
Description Objections made
Ex. 5 Checks written on “Authentication. Yes. The foundation and Geraldine Knapp authentication as to the . . . contents . . . including the acct ending in 1069 . . . checks and the bank statements.” RP2 at 55.
Ex. 6 Records of Kenneth “Same objections, authentication and—also best and Therisa Knapp evidence.” RP at 57. Asked by the court what he would accts ending in 7477 propose as the best evidence, defense counsel answered, and 6163 “The original on bank paper printout with a custodian to verify it is what it purports to be.” Id.
Ex. 7 Records of check “[A]s . . . I understand it the state is offering the . . . deposits into account summary . . . . [A]s such it’s objectionable. Kenneth and Therisa And—there’s no information as to who did what . . . so, Knapp acct ending in addition to the previous objections with in 6163 and 7477 authentication and such, I would also object on the basis of—summary as evidence.” RP at 58. Counsel later adds “also at the same time it’s hearsay.” RP at 60.
Ex. 8 Monthly account “The same objections as the other documents.” statements for acct RP at 66. ending in 8031 for 1/2015 through August 2015.
Ex. 9 Signature cards for “It’s not notarized, or—we don’t have anybody to verify Geraldine Knapp who signed.” RP at 68. account adding Kenneth Knapp as signatory in 2014
2 Report of Proceedings.
4 No. 36126-8-III State v. Knapp
Ex. Records of Kenneth Asked by the court, “[T]he same objections?,” counsel 11 and Therisa Knapp answers, “Yes.” RP at 71. accts ending in 7477 and 6163 for 7/2015 through 10/2015
The trial court overruled the objections. Particularly after defense counsel
objected on hearsay grounds, it was error not to sustain the objections. Much of
Detective Behymer’s testimony that followed was based on information from the bank
records.
The State called as additional witnesses Kenneth’s siblings Danny and Vicki,
Mary Jane Isley, a custodian of records for NY Life, and Renee Ewalt, Geraldine’s
guardian ad litem. Additional financial records for a Discover credit card and the NY
Life policy were offered and admitted. Kenneth was the only defense witness.
The trial court took the matter under advisement and reconvened the parties a
week later to announce its findings and verdict that Therisa and Kenneth were guilty as
charged. Written findings and conclusions were filed by the trial court thereafter.
Therisa appeals. After filing a brief in response to Therisa’s opening brief, the
State filed a motion to withdraw it. Its motion states that it “concedes the custodian of
records should have testified in this case.” Resp’t’s Mot. to Withdraw Response to
Appellant’s Br. & Remand Matter to Super. Ct. for Trial on the Merits at 2. We grant the
State’s motion in part, and deem its response to appellant’s brief withdrawn.
5 No. 36126-8-III State v. Knapp
ANALYSIS
Therisa argues that exhibits 5 through 9 and 11—all records produced to Detective
Behymer by NCNB—should not have been admitted because a qualified witness did not
testify about their identity, mode of preparation, and whether they were prepared in the
course of ordinary business.
Under RCW 5.45.020, “A record of an act, condition or event, shall in so far as
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
FILED December 24, 2019 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. 36126-8-III Respondent, ) ) v. ) ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION THERISA MARRIE KNAPP, ) ) Appellant. )
SIDDOWAY, J. — Therisa Knapp appeals her conviction for first degree theft,
assigning error to the trial court’s ruling admitting bank records for which no foundation
was laid by a record custodian. The State concedes error. Although admissible evidence
supports theft of property having some value, the State does not address whether the
court’s error was harmless. Since we will not search the record ourselves for the
sufficiency of the admissible evidence, we grant the State’s request to remand the matter
for a retrial of the first degree theft charge. No. 36126-8-III State v. Knapp
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In September 2016, Therisa Knapp was charged in Okanogan County with first
degree theft. Adult Protective Services had made a referral that Therisa1 and her husband
Kenneth might have wrongfully exerted control over funds belonging to Kenneth’s
mother, Geraldine Knapp. Kenneth was charged with both first degree theft and forgery.
After her husband’s death in 2009, Geraldine had been able to live on her own, but
suffered from progressing dementia. In 2013, her daughter Vicki, who held a power of
attorney from Geraldine, became concerned about Geraldine living alone, and contacted
the New York Life Insurance Company (NY Life) to activate a long-term care policy
Geraldine had with the insurer. A nurse tasked with evaluating Geraldine agreed that she
should not be living alone, but Geraldine was adamant that she did not want anyone
living in the house with her.
Shortly thereafter, Geraldine executed a durable power of attorney to her sons
Kenneth and Danny, revoking Vicki’s power of attorney. In or about early 2014,
Geraldine broke her hip and began to depend on Therisa and Kenneth for care and
assistance. At the end of 2014 or the beginning of 2015, Therisa and Kenneth moved into
Geraldine’s home.
1 To avoid confusion, all members of the Knapp family will be referred to by first name. No disrespect is intended.
2 No. 36126-8-III State v. Knapp
After Therisa and Kenneth began living with Geraldine, it became increasingly
difficult for other family members, including grandchildren, to visit her, arrange for her
presence at family events, or even contact her. Chains and a padlock appeared on the
entry gate to her yard. In August 2015, one of Geraldine’s granddaughters called police
and asked them to check on her; it was at that point that other family members learned for
the first time that Therisa and Kenneth had moved Geraldine into a nursing home several
months earlier, in May.
Vicki initiated guardianship proceedings and, after being appointed guardian,
discovered that Geraldine’s assets had been dwindling rapidly, a couple of new credit
card accounts had been opened in Geraldine’s name, and a number of Geraldine’s
financial obligations had gone unpaid. Meanwhile, Adult Protective Services, which had
been in contact with Geraldine’s guardian ad litem, referred a concern to the Okanogan
County Sheriff, where it was assigned to Detective Deborah Behymer. The referral
ultimately resulted in the charges against Therisa and Kenneth.
Therisa and Kenneth both waived their right to a jury trial, and the prosecution of
both proceeded to a joint, two-day bench trial. The State’s first witness was Detective
Behymer, and early in her testimony the prosecutor had her identify and describe the
bank record exhibits whose admission is challenged on appeal. Detective Behymer in
each case briefly described the exhibits and testified that they were accurate copies of
documents that North Cascades National Bank (NCNB) produced in response to search
3 No. 36126-8-III State v. Knapp
warrants. When the exhibits were then offered, Kenneth’s lawyer raised the following
objections, which were joined in by Therisa’s lawyer:
Description Objections made
Ex. 5 Checks written on “Authentication. Yes. The foundation and Geraldine Knapp authentication as to the . . . contents . . . including the acct ending in 1069 . . . checks and the bank statements.” RP2 at 55.
Ex. 6 Records of Kenneth “Same objections, authentication and—also best and Therisa Knapp evidence.” RP at 57. Asked by the court what he would accts ending in 7477 propose as the best evidence, defense counsel answered, and 6163 “The original on bank paper printout with a custodian to verify it is what it purports to be.” Id.
Ex. 7 Records of check “[A]s . . . I understand it the state is offering the . . . deposits into account summary . . . . [A]s such it’s objectionable. Kenneth and Therisa And—there’s no information as to who did what . . . so, Knapp acct ending in addition to the previous objections with in 6163 and 7477 authentication and such, I would also object on the basis of—summary as evidence.” RP at 58. Counsel later adds “also at the same time it’s hearsay.” RP at 60.
Ex. 8 Monthly account “The same objections as the other documents.” statements for acct RP at 66. ending in 8031 for 1/2015 through August 2015.
Ex. 9 Signature cards for “It’s not notarized, or—we don’t have anybody to verify Geraldine Knapp who signed.” RP at 68. account adding Kenneth Knapp as signatory in 2014
2 Report of Proceedings.
4 No. 36126-8-III State v. Knapp
Ex. Records of Kenneth Asked by the court, “[T]he same objections?,” counsel 11 and Therisa Knapp answers, “Yes.” RP at 71. accts ending in 7477 and 6163 for 7/2015 through 10/2015
The trial court overruled the objections. Particularly after defense counsel
objected on hearsay grounds, it was error not to sustain the objections. Much of
Detective Behymer’s testimony that followed was based on information from the bank
records.
The State called as additional witnesses Kenneth’s siblings Danny and Vicki,
Mary Jane Isley, a custodian of records for NY Life, and Renee Ewalt, Geraldine’s
guardian ad litem. Additional financial records for a Discover credit card and the NY
Life policy were offered and admitted. Kenneth was the only defense witness.
The trial court took the matter under advisement and reconvened the parties a
week later to announce its findings and verdict that Therisa and Kenneth were guilty as
charged. Written findings and conclusions were filed by the trial court thereafter.
Therisa appeals. After filing a brief in response to Therisa’s opening brief, the
State filed a motion to withdraw it. Its motion states that it “concedes the custodian of
records should have testified in this case.” Resp’t’s Mot. to Withdraw Response to
Appellant’s Br. & Remand Matter to Super. Ct. for Trial on the Merits at 2. We grant the
State’s motion in part, and deem its response to appellant’s brief withdrawn.
5 No. 36126-8-III State v. Knapp
ANALYSIS
Therisa argues that exhibits 5 through 9 and 11—all records produced to Detective
Behymer by NCNB—should not have been admitted because a qualified witness did not
testify about their identity, mode of preparation, and whether they were prepared in the
course of ordinary business.
Under RCW 5.45.020, “A record of an act, condition or event, shall in so far as
relevant, be competent evidence if the custodian or other qualified witness testifies to its
identity and the mode of its preparation, and if it was made in the regular course of
business, at or near the time of the act, condition or event, and if, in the opinion of the
court, the sources of information, method and time of preparation were such as to justify
its admission.” See also ER 803(a)(6). Washington courts interpret the terms
“custodian” and “qualified witness” broadly, finding that a person who supervises the
creation of records is sufficient even if he does not have a sophisticated understanding of
how the records were compiled. State v. Ben-Neth, 34 Wn. App. 600, 603, 663 P.2d 156
(1983).
Error may not be predicated on a ruling that admits evidence unless a substantial
right of the party is affected and a timely objection or motion to strike is made, stating the
specific ground of objection if the specific ground was not apparent from the context.
ER 103(a)(1). Subject to that requirement for error preservation, we review a trial court’s
interpretation of the rules of evidence de novo and, if its interpretation is correct, we
6 No. 36126-8-III State v. Knapp
review its decision whether to admit evidence for abuse of discretion. State v.
Arredondo, 188 Wn. 2d 244, 256, 394 P.3d 348 (2017).
Detective Behymer’s testimony that she served search warrants on NCNB and
recognized the documents comprising exhibits 5 through 9 and 11 as ones she received
in response to the warrant provided sufficient foundation for a limited (and irrelevant)
purpose: it established that the documents are ones the bank produced in response to the
warrant. Her testimony was insufficient to establish that the documents are genuine bank
records or that they were prepared in the regular course of the bank’s business.
Accordingly, her testimony was insufficient to establish that the documents qualify for an
exception to the hearsay rule.
Bank records do not have an inherent reliability that takes them outside the
requirements of RCW 5.45.020. The testimony of a custodian or other qualified witness
for NCNB was required.
While conceding that the evidentiary ruling was error, the State does not explicitly
concede that it was reversible error. We will not search the record to determine the
extent of harm caused by the error where the State’s election not to file a brief deprives
Therisa of an opportunity to reply.
7 No. 36126-8-III State v. Knapp
We reverse the first degree theft conviction and remand for a new trial.
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.
WE CONCUR:
Fearing, J.
Q_ ,S)_ I l'«-;J'. Pennell, A.CJ.