State Of Washington v. Roland K. Douglas ( 2014 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON o
K wo
STATE OF WASHINGTON
cr 'o
No. 71969-6-1 i— — —. „,.
Respondent, CD ---OP
DIVISION ONE
v.
ROLAND K. DOUGLAS, UNPUBLISHED OPINION "
Appellant. FILED: July 28, 2014
Becker, J. — Appellant, convicted of bail jumping, contends the evidence
was insufficient and the information defective. We affirm.
On May 7, 2009, the State charged appellant Roland Douglas with one
count of rape of a child in the third degree. He was tried before a jury and
convicted as charged on February 12, 2010. Douglas appealed. The conviction
was reversed and remanded for reasons unrelated to this appeal.
On August 20, 2012, according to minutes of the Mason County Superior
Court Clerk, the matter came on for arraignment after mandate. The minutes
state that the defendant was present and the court agreed to release the
defendant on his promise to appear. The court signed an order specifying the
conditions of pretrial release. The court also signed an order scheduling an
omnibus hearing for September 24, 2012, a pretrial hearing for October 29, 2012,
and trial beginning November 6, 2012. The order stated that Douglas was
required to be present at all hearings. At the bottom of the order setting the
No. 71969-6-1/2
hearing dates are the words, "I promise to appear on the dates set out above:"
with a signature line. On the line is the signature of "Roland Douglas."
According to notes on the criminal calendar for September 24, 2012,
Douglas failed to appear for the omnibus hearing scheduled for that date. The
court issued a bench warrant for Douglas for failure to appear at the omnibus
hearing.
On January 23, 2013, the State filed a first amended information adding a
count of bail jumping to the rape charge. The amended information alleged
count one in identical terms as in the original information. It alleged count two as
a charge of bail jumping for failing to appear at the hearing on September 24,
2012.
A trial lasting two days began on February 21, 2013. RP 36. A jury
convicted Douglas as charged on both counts. He appeals only the bail
jumping conviction. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to
convict and the adequacy of the information.
Sufficiency of the evidence
Due process requires the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all
the necessary facts of the crime charged. U.S. Const, amend. 14; Const, art. 1,
section 3; In re Winship. 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 25 L. Ed. 2d 368(1970). The test for determining sufficiency of the evidence is whether, after
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of
fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Salinas, 119
Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992). All reasonable inferences must be
No. 71969-6-1/3
drawn in favor of the State and interpreted most strongly against the defendant.
Salinas, 119 Wn.2d at 201. Circumstantial evidence is equally reliable as direct
evidence. State v. Delmarter. 94 Wn.2d 634, 638, 618 P.2d 99 (1980).
To prove the charge of bail jumping, the State had to present evidence
that Douglas was "released by court order or admitted to bail with knowledge of
the requirement of a subsequent personal appearance" before the court and that
he failed to appear as required. RCW 9A.76.170(1). The State's burden
includes demonstrating that the person on trial is the same person who failed to
appear at the prior hearing. See State v. Huber. 129 Wn. App. 499, 502-03, 119
P.3d 388 (2005).
In Huber, the State charged the defendant with violating a protection order
and tampering with a witness. The defendant was released and ordered to
appear on July 10, 2003. He failed to appear. The court issued a bench warrant.
In October, the State charged him with bail jumping.
The bail jumping count was tried separately from the other counts. At trial,
the State offered four certified documents to prove bail jumping: an information
charging Huber with violation of a protection order and tampering with a witness,
a court order requiring Huber to appear on July 10, 2003, clerk's minutes
indicating that Huber did not appear on July 10, 2003, and the bench warrant.
"The State did not call any witnesses or otherwise attempt to show that the
exhibits related to the same Wayne Huber who was then before the court."
Huber, 129 Wn. App. at 501.
No. 71969-6-1/4
On appeal, the conviction was reversed for insufficiency of the evidence.
The State had proved that a person named Wayne Huber had jumped bail. But
the evidence did not prove that the Wayne Huber who jumped bail was the
person then in court. The court analyzed the situation as an instance of the
State's general obligation to assume the burden of proving beyond a reasonable
doubt the identity of the accused as the person who committed the offense:
To sustain this burden when criminal liability depends on the
accused's being the person to whom a document pertains—as, for
example, in most if not all prosecutions for first degree escape,
being a felon in possession of an item that a felon may not lawfully
have, lying under oath on a written application, and being an
habitual criminal—the State must do more than authenticate and
admit the document; it also must show beyond a reasonable doubt
"that the person named therein is the same person on trial."
Because "in many instances men bear identical names," the State
cannot do this by showing identity of names alone. Rather, it must
show, "by evidence independent of the record," that the person
named therein is the defendant in the present action.
The State can meet this burden in a variety of specific ways.
Depending on the circumstances, these may include otherwise-
admissible booking photographs, booking fingerprints, eyewitness
identification, or, arguably, distinctive personal information. But the
State does not meet its burden merely because the defense opts
not to present evidence; if the State presents insufficient evidence,
the defendant's election not to rebut it does not suddenly cause it to
become sufficient.
Here, the State produced documents in the name of Wayne
Huber, but no evidence to show "that the person named therein is
the same person on trial."
Huber, 129 Wn. App. at 501-03 (footnotes omitted).
Douglas contends that here, the State presented the same kinds of
documentary evidence found insufficient in Huber—the information, the court
order requiring the defendant to appear, a clerk's notation that he failed to
appear, and the bench warrant—without presenting any evidence that the Roland
No. 71969-6-1/5
Douglas who was on trial before the court was the same Roland Douglas named
in the documents. Douglas overlooks additional evidence of identity that
materially distinguishes this case from Huber.
Unlike in Huber, Douglas was tried in the same proceeding both on the
underlying charge of child rape and on the charge of failing to appear for a
hearing scheduled in connection with the child rape charge. At trial, Shelton
Police Officer Mark Hinton identified Douglas and said he had known him for
seven years. The alleged victim in the child rape charge, who was between the
ages of 14 and 16 at the time of the offense, also identified Douglas in open
court. Douglas does not contend he was insufficiently identified as the defendant
with respect to the charge of child rape. The fact that he was adequately
identified as the person accused of child rape provided evidence, independent of
the documents, that the Roland Douglas who jumped bail on the child rape
charge was the same Roland Douglas as the person accused of child rape. The
eyewitness identifications of Douglas, together with the documents, support a
logical circumstantial inference that the Roland Douglas who was named in the
documents and who signed a promise to appear was the same individual then
before the court defending against the charge of child rape. We conclude the
evidence was sufficient to prove the charge of bail jumping.
No. 71969-6-1/6
Adequacy of information
The additional count charging bail jumping did not name the underlying
offense of third degree child rape. Douglas contends a conviction for bail
jumping must be reversed if the information does not identify the underlying
offense.
A charging document must allege facts which support every element of
the offense charged and must adequately identify the crime charged. State v.
Williams. 162 Wn.2d 177, 183, 170 P.3d 30 (2007). The purpose of this rule is to
give the accused proper notice of the nature of the crime so that the accused can
prepare an adequate defense. Williams, 162 Wn.2d at 183, citing State v.
Kiorsvik, 117 Wn.2d 93, 101-02, 812 P.2d 86 (1991). Where, as here, the
defendant challenges the sufficiency of the charging document for the first time
on appeal, the test for sufficiency is a liberal one:
(1) do the necessary facts appear in any form, or by fair
construction can they be found, in the charging document; and, if
so, (2) can the defendant show that he or she was nonetheless
actually prejudiced by the inartful language which caused a lack of
notice?
Kiorsvik, 117 Wn.2d at 105-06. The information is read as a whole, according to
common sense and including facts that are implied, to see if it reasonably
apprises the accused of the elements of the crime charged. Kiorsvik, 117 Wn.2d
at 109. Because the charging document is reviewed as a whole, we may look at
other counts in the information to determine if the count at issue is
constitutionally sufficient. State v. Nonoq, 169 Wn.2d 220, 227, 237 P.3d 250(2010).
No. 71969-6-1/7
The elements of bail jumping are met ifthe defendant (1) was held for,
charged with, or convicted of a particular crime; (2) was released by court order
or admitted to bail with the requirement of a subsequent personal appearance;
and (3) knowingly failed to appear as required. RCW 9A.76.170(1); Williams.
162Wn.2dat184.
Assuming that the name of the underlying offense is a fact that must be
alleged to support the elements of bail jumping, the amended information here
was sufficient. Count one charged Douglas with rape of a child in the third
degree. In the same document and under the same Mason County cause
number, No. 09-100177-4, count two charged him with bail jumping for failing to
appear as required in Mason County Superior Court in Mason County cause
number 09-100177-4:
In the County of Mason, State of Washington, on or about
the 24th day of September, 2012, the above-named Defendant,
ROLAND K. DOUGLAS, did commit BAIL JUMPING, a Class C
felony, in that said defendant having been released by court order
or admitted to bail with knowledge of the requirement of
subsequent personal appearance before a court of this State, to
wit: the Mason County Superior Court in the case of State of
Washington v. ROLAND K. DOUGLAS, Mason County cause
number 09-1-00177-4, did fail to appear as required: contrary to
RCW 9A.76.170 and against the peace and dignity of the State of
Washington.
Under the liberal interpretation rule of Kiorsvik, we need only determine whether
the necessary facts appear in any form, or by fair construction can they be found,
in the charging document. The amended information meets this test. The
information when read as a whole reasonably apprised Douglas that he was
No. 71969-6-1/8
charged with (1) child rape and (2) failing to appear as required at a hearing on
the child rape charge on September 24, 2012.
Affirmed.
"gfefcter, /.
WE CONCUR: