State Of Washington, Res. v. T. J. H., App ( 2013 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTONW
\ ' '-ri r'
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
No. 68575-9-I
Respondent,
DIVISION ONE
v.
T.H. (DOB 01/10/1996), UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant. FILED: August 5, 2013
Leach, C.J. — Fingerprint evidence is sufficient by itself to support a
conviction if a rational trier of fact could reasonably infer that the prints could only
have been impressed at the time of the offense. Because the evidence in this
case meets this standard and because T.H.'s other arguments lack merit, we
affirm his juvenile convictions for two counts of residential burglary.
FACTS
In 2011, police investigating two residential burglaries in Bellevue found
T.H.'s fingerprints on items inside the homes. In one home, T.H.'s prints were
found on a shower curtain rod next to the window where the burglar entered.
The homeowner had purchased the curtain rod within the last year at a Bellevue
discount store. Prior to installation, the rod was encased in shrink-wrap that was
"impossible to open."
In the other home, T.H.'s prints were found on a camcorder box that the
burglar had taken out of a closet. The camcorder, which was missing from its
No. 68575-9-1/2
box, had been purchased on line within the last year and had arrived at the
house in packaging. The fingerprints were the only evidence linking T.H. to the
burglaries.
Police arrested T.H. and charged him with two counts of residential
burglary. T.H. told police that he had never been in Bellevue.
Following separate bench trials, the juvenile court found T.H. guilty as
charged. The court found there was no reasonable explanation for the
fingerprints on the curtain rod and camcorder box other than that T.H. put them
there during the burglaries. T.H. appeals.
DECISION
The principal issue on appeal is whether T.H.'s convictions are supported
by sufficient evidence. Evidence is sufficient if, when viewed in a light most
favorable to the State, it permits any rational trier of fact to find the essential
elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.1 A challenge to the
sufficiency of evidence admits the truth of the State's evidence and all
reasonable inferences from that evidence.2
The only evidence linking T.H. to the burglaries were his fingerprints on
the shower curtain rod and camcorder box. "Fingerprint evidence alone is
sufficient to support a conviction where the trier of fact could reasonably infer
1 State v. Green. 94 Wn.2d 216, 221, 616 P.2d 628 (1980) (quoting
Jackson v. Virginia. 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L Ed. 2d 560 (1979)).
2 State v. Salinas. 119Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068(1992).
No. 68575-9-1/3
from the circumstances that it could only have been impressed at the time the
crime was committed."3 T.H. contends the juvenile court could not draw such an
inference in this case because the shower curtain rod "could have been an item
that had been returned, repackaged and resold" and the camcorder box "was
recently in the stream of commerce." But the State need not disprove all
conceivable hypotheses consistent with innocence.4 Rather, it need only provide
evidence sufficient for the trier of fact to reasonably infer that the fingerprinted
items were "generally inaccessible" to the defendant prior to the crimes and that
the fingerprints were impressed only at the time of the crime.5 The evidence in
this case was sufficient to support such inferences in both burglaries.
As discussed above, the camcorder was purchased on line and sent to the
victim's house in packaging. The shower curtain rod was purchased at a store in
Bellevue a year before the burglary and was wrapped in plastic shrink-wrap when
purchased. T.H. told police he had never been to Bellevue. Viewed in a light
most favorable to the State, this evidence supports inferences that the
fingerprinted items were "generally inaccessible" to T.H. prior to the burglaries
and that T.H.'s fingerprints could only have been impressed during the
burglaries. Those inferences in turn support the juvenile court's conclusion,
beyond a reasonable doubt, that T.H. committed the burglaries.
3State v. Lucca. 56 Wn. App. 597, 599, 784 P.2d 572 (1990).
4 State v. Bridge. 91 Wn. App. 98, 100, 955 P.2d 418 (1998).
5
Bridge. 91 Wn. App. at 100.
No. 68575-9-1/4
T.H. contends State v. Bridge6 requires a contrary conclusion. Bridge is
distinguishable. Bridge's fingerprint was found on a price tag affixed to a tool that
had recently been purchased "in an area open to the public." The tool was thus
accessible to Bridge before the burglary, and the evidence was therefore
insufficient to reasonably infer that his fingerprint could only have been
impressed at the time of the crime.7 The facts in this case, by contrast,
supported reasonable inferences that the objects bearing T.H.'s fingerprints were
not generally accessible prior to the burglaries and that his fingerprints could only
have been impressed on the objects at the time of the crimes.
For the first time on appeal, T.H. contends the court erred when it took
judicial notice, without notice and an opportunity to be heard, that "online
purchases are not through publicly accessible retail outlets in the same way as
presumably occurred in the Bridge case." Assuming, without deciding, that T.H.
can raise this issue for the first time on appeal, we conclude there was no error.
The juvenile court clarified that the fact it judicially noticed was really just a
reasonable inference from the evidence. We agree. On the evidence presented,
it was reasonable for the court to infer that the camcorder purchased on line was
not publicly accessible "in the same way" as the tool in Bridge.
6 91 Wn. App. 98, 955 P.2d 418 (1998).
7 Bridge. 91 Wn. App. at 101.
No. 68575-9-1 / 5
T.H. also assigns error to various findings but does not support the
assignments with argument. The findings are therefore verities on appeal.8
Affirmed.
_pU"/t O s/
WE CONCUR:
£
\vQ^tUf^ C"\)^ /AtXiA . [\
8 State v. Moreno, 173 Wn. App. 479, 491, 294 P.3d 812 (2013), review
denied. No. 88588-5 (Wash. July 10, 2013).