Pearson, J.
Edward Matthews appeals his conviction of grand larceny (welfare fraud). RCW 74.08.331. He was charged as both a principal and an accomplice. RCW 9A.08.020. The sole issue is whether there was sufficient evidence to submit the issues of his guilt as both a principal and an accomplice. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient, but an erroneous jury instruction requires that we reverse and grant defendant a new trial.
[200]*200The facts necessary to this inquiry follow. In early May 1977, defendant and his wife, Shirley K. Matthews, allegedly separated, and he alleged that he moved into a trailer located on property owned by his brother. On May 21, 1977, Mrs. Matthews applied for state public assistance, alleging in her application that she and her husband had separated and he was not providing her with support. She began receiving assistance in May of that year and continued to receive assistance through August 1978. Defendant was receiving income from his job through September 1977, and from disability insurance beginning in January 1978. Mrs. Matthews did not report these sources of income in either of the two eligibility review forms she submitted to the Department of Social and Health Services during the period she was receiving public assistance.
In May or June 1978, DSHS began an investigation of the Matthewses. As a result, defendant and Shirley Matthews were both charged with violation of RCW 74.08-.331. Mrs. Matthews pleaded guilty on March 19, 1979, and was sentenced on May 21, 1979. After a jury trial, defendant was found guilty on May 2, 1979, and sentenced on June 26, 1979.
The State introduced the testimony of a number of witnesses linking the defendant circumstantially to living with his wife and participating in the receipt of public assistance. A welfare fraud investigator, Mr. Coucoules, testified that in an interview with defendant, he acknowledged that his wife was receiving public assistance, but stated that he was neither living with his wife nor sharing in the assistance. There was evidence that after his alleged separation the defendant never reported any address change to either his former employer or the wage earner plan organization to which he belonged. Dorothy Wegren, a next-door neighbor, testified that defendant purchased her husband's truck in April 1978, on an installment basis, with one payment being made by Mrs. Matthews. She stated the truck was often parked at the Matthewses' home and that she often saw defendant at the home. Another neighbor, Claire Riche, [201]*201testified she had seen defendant's vehicle and items of his clothing at the home. She also testified to a conversation she heard between defendant and Mrs. Matthews in which defendant stated that Mrs. Matthews was to continue receiving assistance so that he could use this money to get a few things he wanted. James Barlow, the landlord and owner of the Matthewses' home, testified that he often saw defendant at the home during the period of the alleged separation. He further testified that defendant, who occasionally contributed to the rent payments during this period, requested that the rent receipts be made out in Mrs. Matthews' name for public assistance purposes. Another neighbor, Rita Watson, testified she visited the Matthewses' home on a daily basis during the period of the alleged separation, and that defendant was often present, his clothes were present, and he often ate meals there. She also testified she heard a conversation in which defendant told Mrs. Matthews that the disability insurance checks were his, and that she was to look to the assistance money for her support.
Defendant's case consisted of the testimony of his brother and sister-in-law, who testified that during the period involved defendant spent most evenings at the trailer house on the brother's property.
The elements instruction permitted the jury to find defendant guilty as either a principal or an aider or abettor if he obtained or aided and abetted any other person to obtain any public assistance to which he was not entitled, or greater public assistance than that to which he was justly entitled by means of:
(a) A wilfully false statement, or
(b) A wilful failure to reveal any material fact, condition or circumstance affecting eligibility or need for assistance, which is required by law, or
(c) A wilful failure to promptly notify the Department as required by law of any change in status in respect to resources or income or family composition, money contribution and other support from whatever source derived, [202]*202or any other change in circumstances affecting [his] eligibility or need for assistance ....
The jury was also instructed that it need not be unanimous as to which of the three alternatives had been committed as long as each juror believed defendant had committed at least one of the alternatives. Further, the jury was instructed that it need not be unanimous as to whether the defendant was a principal or aider and abettor, as long as it was unanimous that defendant participated in the crime charged. This portion of the instruction is consistent with State v. Carothers, 84 Wn.2d 256, 525 P.2d 731 (1974) and State v. Bennett, 20 Wn. App. 783, 582 P.2d 569 (1978). See State v. Arndt, 87 Wn.2d 374, 553 P.2d 1328 (1976).
Defendant does not challenge the instruction as an incorrect statement of the law. Rather, defendant's contention is that the evidence was insufficient to establish that defendant participated in the crime as an accomplice. The argument is that defendant's physical presence in the home was not sufficient evidence of his participation in the welfare fraud to make him an accomplice under RCW 9A.08-.020. Defendant relies upon In re Wilson, 91 Wn.2d 487, 588 P.2d 1161 (1979), where our Supreme Court held that physical presence of an accused at the scene of a crime is not sufficient evidence to establish his participation as an accomplice; there must be substantial evidence that the accused had (1) knowledge of the wrongful purpose of the perpetrator, and (2) intent to encourage the perpetrator in that wrongful purpose. While we agree that these principles are correct general statements of the law pertaining to accomplices, we disagree that the evidence was insufficient under appropriate standards of review to submit the issue of defendant's guilt to the jury.
We start with the proposition that a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence requires us to view it in a light most favorable to the State, affording the State the benefit of all reasonable inferences therefrom. State v. Bishop, 90 [203]*203Wn.2d 185, 580 P.2d 259 (1978); State v. McKeown,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Pearson, J.
Edward Matthews appeals his conviction of grand larceny (welfare fraud). RCW 74.08.331. He was charged as both a principal and an accomplice. RCW 9A.08.020. The sole issue is whether there was sufficient evidence to submit the issues of his guilt as both a principal and an accomplice. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient, but an erroneous jury instruction requires that we reverse and grant defendant a new trial.
[200]*200The facts necessary to this inquiry follow. In early May 1977, defendant and his wife, Shirley K. Matthews, allegedly separated, and he alleged that he moved into a trailer located on property owned by his brother. On May 21, 1977, Mrs. Matthews applied for state public assistance, alleging in her application that she and her husband had separated and he was not providing her with support. She began receiving assistance in May of that year and continued to receive assistance through August 1978. Defendant was receiving income from his job through September 1977, and from disability insurance beginning in January 1978. Mrs. Matthews did not report these sources of income in either of the two eligibility review forms she submitted to the Department of Social and Health Services during the period she was receiving public assistance.
In May or June 1978, DSHS began an investigation of the Matthewses. As a result, defendant and Shirley Matthews were both charged with violation of RCW 74.08-.331. Mrs. Matthews pleaded guilty on March 19, 1979, and was sentenced on May 21, 1979. After a jury trial, defendant was found guilty on May 2, 1979, and sentenced on June 26, 1979.
The State introduced the testimony of a number of witnesses linking the defendant circumstantially to living with his wife and participating in the receipt of public assistance. A welfare fraud investigator, Mr. Coucoules, testified that in an interview with defendant, he acknowledged that his wife was receiving public assistance, but stated that he was neither living with his wife nor sharing in the assistance. There was evidence that after his alleged separation the defendant never reported any address change to either his former employer or the wage earner plan organization to which he belonged. Dorothy Wegren, a next-door neighbor, testified that defendant purchased her husband's truck in April 1978, on an installment basis, with one payment being made by Mrs. Matthews. She stated the truck was often parked at the Matthewses' home and that she often saw defendant at the home. Another neighbor, Claire Riche, [201]*201testified she had seen defendant's vehicle and items of his clothing at the home. She also testified to a conversation she heard between defendant and Mrs. Matthews in which defendant stated that Mrs. Matthews was to continue receiving assistance so that he could use this money to get a few things he wanted. James Barlow, the landlord and owner of the Matthewses' home, testified that he often saw defendant at the home during the period of the alleged separation. He further testified that defendant, who occasionally contributed to the rent payments during this period, requested that the rent receipts be made out in Mrs. Matthews' name for public assistance purposes. Another neighbor, Rita Watson, testified she visited the Matthewses' home on a daily basis during the period of the alleged separation, and that defendant was often present, his clothes were present, and he often ate meals there. She also testified she heard a conversation in which defendant told Mrs. Matthews that the disability insurance checks were his, and that she was to look to the assistance money for her support.
Defendant's case consisted of the testimony of his brother and sister-in-law, who testified that during the period involved defendant spent most evenings at the trailer house on the brother's property.
The elements instruction permitted the jury to find defendant guilty as either a principal or an aider or abettor if he obtained or aided and abetted any other person to obtain any public assistance to which he was not entitled, or greater public assistance than that to which he was justly entitled by means of:
(a) A wilfully false statement, or
(b) A wilful failure to reveal any material fact, condition or circumstance affecting eligibility or need for assistance, which is required by law, or
(c) A wilful failure to promptly notify the Department as required by law of any change in status in respect to resources or income or family composition, money contribution and other support from whatever source derived, [202]*202or any other change in circumstances affecting [his] eligibility or need for assistance ....
The jury was also instructed that it need not be unanimous as to which of the three alternatives had been committed as long as each juror believed defendant had committed at least one of the alternatives. Further, the jury was instructed that it need not be unanimous as to whether the defendant was a principal or aider and abettor, as long as it was unanimous that defendant participated in the crime charged. This portion of the instruction is consistent with State v. Carothers, 84 Wn.2d 256, 525 P.2d 731 (1974) and State v. Bennett, 20 Wn. App. 783, 582 P.2d 569 (1978). See State v. Arndt, 87 Wn.2d 374, 553 P.2d 1328 (1976).
Defendant does not challenge the instruction as an incorrect statement of the law. Rather, defendant's contention is that the evidence was insufficient to establish that defendant participated in the crime as an accomplice. The argument is that defendant's physical presence in the home was not sufficient evidence of his participation in the welfare fraud to make him an accomplice under RCW 9A.08-.020. Defendant relies upon In re Wilson, 91 Wn.2d 487, 588 P.2d 1161 (1979), where our Supreme Court held that physical presence of an accused at the scene of a crime is not sufficient evidence to establish his participation as an accomplice; there must be substantial evidence that the accused had (1) knowledge of the wrongful purpose of the perpetrator, and (2) intent to encourage the perpetrator in that wrongful purpose. While we agree that these principles are correct general statements of the law pertaining to accomplices, we disagree that the evidence was insufficient under appropriate standards of review to submit the issue of defendant's guilt to the jury.
We start with the proposition that a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence requires us to view it in a light most favorable to the State, affording the State the benefit of all reasonable inferences therefrom. State v. Bishop, 90 [203]*203Wn.2d 185, 580 P.2d 259 (1978); State v. McKeown, 23 Wn. App. 582, 596 P.2d 1100 (1979).
[T]he relevant question 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.
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560, 573, 99 S. Ct. 2781 (1979); State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216, 221, 616 P.2d 628 (1980).
The evidence, cited above satisfies that standard. A rational trier of fact could well have believed that defendant and his wife were not separated during any of the period in question. A rational jury could likewise have believed that defendant encouraged his wife to apply for welfare, used the welfare money for his own benefit, and assisted his wife in concealing his status from the department. Furthermore, because both Mr. and Mrs. Matthews were charged with committing welfare fraud, it was not necessary for the State to establish which defendant was the principal and which was the abettor so long as each defendant was shown to have participated in the crime and committed at least one overt act. State v. Baylor, 17 Wn. App. 616, 565 P.2d 99 (1977).
At oral argument, defendant's counsel called our attention to the case of State v. Shipp, 93 Wn.2d 510, 610 P.2d 1322 (1980), which was decided after this case was tried. In that case, our Supreme Court condemned an instruction which defined culpability by quoting verbatim RCW 9A.08-.010(l)(b). In the case at bench, a similar instruction was given, as follows:
A person knows or acts knowingly or with knowledge when:
(1) he or she is aware of a fact, facts or circumstances or result described by law as being a crime; or
(2) he or she has information which would lead a reasonable person in the same situation to believe the facts exist which facts are described by law as being a crime.
[204]*204 The vice of this instruction according to State v. Shipp, supra, is that subparagraph (2) is susceptible to being construed in three different ways, two of which would cause an unconstitutional mandatory presumption of culpability rather than a permissive presumption, which is constitutional.
Even though this error was not preserved at trial, we are required to consider it because of its constitutional stature. State v. Roberts, 88 Wn.2d 337, 562 P.2d 1259 (1977). Unless we can say the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, we must reverse this conviction.
The State's case was largely circumstantial to establish defendant's knowledge of his wife's representations to DSHS on her original application as well as her two supplementary reports. We are, therefore, unable to conclude that if the jury were to apply a subjective test of defendant's knowledge as required by Shipp, it would necessarily have found him guilty on any of the three ways described in RCW 74.08.331. At least we are unable to conclude that a jury would have found defendant had knowledge of his wife's representations to DSHS. State v. Russell, 27 Wn. App. 309, 617 P.2d 467 (1980).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
Petrich, J., concurs.