State Of Washington v. Frank Rucker

Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
December 15, 2015
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 46703 -8 -II
Respondent, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
V.
FRANK JUNIOR RUCKER,
WORGEN, A.C. J. — Frank Junior Rucker appeals his conviction for felony violation of a
domestic violence no contact order. He argues that the State presented insufficient evidence that
he knowingly made contact with the protected party. We disagree and affirm Rucker' s
conviction.
FACTS
On May 29, 2014, Rucker was driving his van in Aberdeen with two passengers in the
rear compartment, one of whom was Kelly Eidsmoe. At the time, a valid domestic violence no
contact order prohibited Rucker from having contact with Eidsmoe. The rear compartment of
No. 46703 -8 -II
the van was partitioned from the front compartment by a thin bed sheet that partially obstructed
the view. The van' s rear and middle doors did not open, so the rear compartment was accessible
only by the van' s front doors.
A police officer attempted to stop Rucker' s van after running the license plate and
learning that an arrest warrant existed for the registered owner. The officer activated her squad
car' s emergency lights, but Rucker did not yield. The officer then activated her car' s siren, but
Rucker still did not yield. Eventually, however, Rucker stopped when he reached a dead end,
and the officer approached.
When asked, Rucker told the officer that there, were two people in the van. Rucker told
the officer that his name was Michael Junior Park. He also said that he .was born on August 16,
1954— nearly 60 years earlier, at that time— but that he was 47 years old. When the officer
asked him if he owned the van, he said, " No. Frank is the owner." Report of Proceedings at 49.
However, when the officer searched the van, she found Rucker' s wallet, inside of which was
identification showing his correct name and birth date.
A male passenger emerged from the back of the van,. but Eidsmoe remained inside.
Officers discovered Eidsmoe and questioned her. She told them her name, and they
subsequently discovered the valid no contact order prohibiting Rucker from being within 500
feet of her. The officers then informed Rucker he was under arrest for violation of the order, to
which he expressed no surprise.
0)
No. 46703 -8 -II
The State charged Rucker with felony violation of a no contact order and making a false
or misleading statement to a police officer. At trial, both officers present at. the scene of
Rucker' s stop and arrest testified, as did Rucker himself. The jury found Rucker guilty of
violating the no contact order but did not reach a verdict on the false statement charge.
Rucker now appeals his resulting conviction for felony violation of a domestic violence
no contact order
ANALYSIS
Rucker argues that the State failed to produce sufficient evidence to support a finding
beyond a reasonable doubt that Rucker knowingly violated the no contact order. We disagree.
Evidence is sufficient to support a criminal conviction if,viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Homan, 181 Wash. 2d 102, 105, 330 P.3d 182 ( 2014). In
evaluating a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we assume the truth of the State' s evidence and
all reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence. Id. at 106. We defer to the trier of fact' s
resolution of conflicting testimony and evaluation of the persuasiveness of the evidence. Id. In
evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider circumstantial evidence as reliable as
direct evidence. State v. Smith, 185 Wash. App. 945, 957, 344 P.3d 1244, revie-w, denied, 183
Wash. 2d 1011 ( 2015).
To convict a defendant charged with violation of a no contact order, the State must prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that ( 1) the defendant willfully contacted (2) a person protected by a
valid no contact order, ( 3) with knowledge of the no contact order. RCW 10. 99. 050; State v..
Sisemore, 114 Wn. App. 75, 78, 55 P.3d 1178 ( 2002). " A defendant acts willfully if he acts
knowingly with respect to the material elements,
including the contact element." Sisemore, 114
91
No. 46703 -8 -II
Wn. App. at 78. This is consistent with the " to convict" jury instruction given by the trial court
for felony violation of a court order, requiring that the defendant knew of the order and
knowingly violated a portion of A person acts knowingly if "he or she is aware of a fact,
facts, or circumstances or result described by a statute defining an offense." RCW
9A.08. 010( 1)( b)( i). However, a person does not knowingly violate a contact prohibition in a
situation in which the defendant " accidentally or inadvertently contacted [ the protected parry] but
immediately broke it off." Sisemore, 114 Wash. App. at 78.
Assuming the truth of the State' s evidence and viewing it in the light most favorable to
the State, the evidence supports a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Rucker knowingly
violated the no contact order. Testimony established that Rucker initially failed to stop when the
police attempted to pull him over, and then he attempted to conceal his identity when stopped by
police. Similarly, Eidsmoe remained in the van during the stop, even though the other passenger
exited. The jury reasonably could have inferred from this circumstantial evidence that both
Rucker and Eidsmoe were aware that she was in his vehicle in violation of the no contact order,
and were attempting to conceal Eidsmoe' s presence and the violation from police. Moreover,
the jury could have inferred Rucker' s knowledge of Eidsmoe' s presence from the evidence that
Rucker was driving the van with at least. partial visibility of the rear compartment in which
Eidsmoe was found and that Eidsmoe could not have entered the van from behind the partition
sheet. In the aggregate, sufficient evidence supported a finding that Rucker knowingly violated
the order.
C!
No. 46703 -8 -II
CONCLUSION
We hold that sufficient evidence supported the jury' s verdict. Accordingly, we affirm
Rucker' s conviction.
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.
B C. J.
We concur:
GE
MELNICK, J.
SUTT01