State of Washington v. Joshuah Stephen Caron

FILED
JUNE 29, 2017
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. 34209-3-111
Respondent, )
)
V. )
)
JOSHUAH STEPHEN CARON, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
Appellant. )
FEARING, C.J. -A jury convicted Joshuah Caron for violating a no-contact order
that protected Angela Thompson, when Caron sent a package through the mail to
Thompson's toddler daughter. On appeal, Caron contends that insufficient evidence
supports his conviction. We disagree and affirm.
FACTS
Joshuah Caron and Angela Thompson sporadically dated and cohabitated from
2009 to 2015. When the relationship commenced, Thompson had two children, J.T. and
B.T. During the courtship, Thompson bore H.T, the biological offspring o.f another man.
When H.T. reached one and one-half years of age, Caron and Thompson's relationship
ended.
No. 34209-3-III
State v. Caron
On June 10, 2015, after Joshuah Caron and Angela Thompson's courtship ceased,
a trial court issued a domestic violence no-contact order prohibiting Caron from direct or
indirect contact with Thompson. In pertinent part, the trial court ordered that Caron:
B. do not contact the protected person, directly, indirectly, in person
or through others, by phone, mail or electronic means, except for mailing or
service of process of court documents through a third party, or contact by
[Caron]'s lawyers.
Ex. 1. The order listed Angela Thompson, but not her children, as a protected person.
Caron signed the protection order and understood its requirements.
On June 19, 2015, Angela Thompson received through the mail a package
addressed to H.T. The return address read simply "J." Report of Proceedings (RP) (Feb.
16, 2016) at 59. Thompson knew Joshuah Caron sent the package because the address
label was in his handwriting and the return address was Caron's sister's address.
Thompson opened the package to find a towel, pajamas, photographs, and a letter. The
pajamas fit no one but H.T. The pictures showed Thompson, Caron, and H.T. The
typewritten letter read:
Dear [H.T.],
Hi baby girl I love you ... so much! I miss your mama and Sissy and
brother! I will love you forever no matter what I love all of you forever I
would love your mama always & forever!!!!!!!
I don't know if or when I'll be able to see u I just want you to
remember always you're in my heart you are my heart!!! I got you a couple
pairs of pajamas and a beach towel I hope the pajama fit you I hope you
like them! There's also a couple of pictures in the envelope and the bottom
of the box I just want you to have pictures of you and daddy! I'm so sorry
the things are this way I wish it could be different, no matter what I will
2
No. 34209-3-III
State v. Caron
think [of] you everyday with every breath I take and I will never forget you
maybe someday we can see each other again but I don't know when or if
that will happen just always remember everybody makes mistakes I'm not
perfect nobody is!! I wish I could out of my hands right now I miss you all
so much it's hard to breathe! I'll always be in your heart no matter what
happens and its not your fault that things are the way they are!
Love Always & Forever
Daddy
Ex. 6.
The package and its contents saddened Angela Thompson. Joshuah Caron never
sought legal parental status of any of Thompson's children.
PROCEDURE
The State of Washington charged Joshuah Caron with one count of felony
violation of a no-contact order against a family or household member. The felony count
requires proof of two earlier violations of the order. At trial, Caron conceded he violated
the no-contact order on two earlier occasions. The trial court read to the jury a stipulation
concerning Caron's previous convictions for breaching the order.
Joshuah Caron testified, during trial, that he assumed the father role for Angela
Thompson's children, including H.T. He "tried to assume the best father role [he] could
because [J.T. and B.T.] had no father involved in their life at all" and he was the only dad
H.T. ever knew. RP (Feb. 16, 2016) at 65-66. Caron admitted that he mailed the
package, its contents, and the letter to H. T. He protested that sending the package to H. T.
3
No. 34209-3-III
State v. Caron
violated the no-contact order, since the order did not bar contact with Thompson's
children.
During trial testimony, Joshuah Caron insisted that a package to a minor child
constituted a package to that child, not someone else. Caron explained that he sent the
letter to an illiterate H.T., with the expectation that H.T. would read the letter when older.
In the alternative, he considered that one of the older two children, J.T. or B.T., would
read the letter to H.T. Caron acknowledged that he never sent similar packages to
Thompson's older two children, who could read without assistance.
The trial court instructed the jury that, in order to convict Joshuah Caron, it must
find the State proved five elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) on June 19, 2015, a
no-contact order applied to Caron, (2) Caron knew of the existence of the order, (3) on
June 19, Caron knowingly violated a provision of the order, (4) Caron had twice been
convicted of violating the provisions of a court order, and (5) Caron's acts occurred in the
State of Washington. During closing, Caron admitted that the State proved all but one of
the elements required for his conviction. He told the jury that the only question to answer
was whether he knowingly violated the no-contact order by indirectly contacting Angela
Thompson through the package sent to H.T. Caron asked the jury to answer the question
in the negative. The jury convicted Caron of violating the no-contact order. By special
verdict, the jury also found that Caron committed the crime against a family or household
member.
4
No. 34209-3-III
State v. Caron
LAW AND ANALYSIS
The protection order favoring Angela Thompson banned Joshuah Caron from
direct or indirect contact with Thompson. On appeal, Caron contends that the State
presented insufficient evidence that he knowingly violated the no-contact order by
indirectly contacting Thompson through the package he mailed to her minor daughter.
The State argues that sufficient facts permitted the jury to infer that Caron knowingly
violated the no-contact order. We agree with the State.
Several statutes authorize no-contact. orders. The trial court originally issued the
no-contact order against Joshuah Caron under chapter 10.99 RCW, RCW
I0.99.050(2)(a) provides that a "[w]illful violation of a court order ... is punishable
under RCW 26.50.11 O." A person willfully violates a no-contact order when he acts
knowingly with respect to the material elements of the offense, including the contact
element. RCW 9A.08.010(4); State v. Sisemore, 114 Wn. App. 75, 77, 55 P.3d 1178(2002). Therefore, Caron violated the no-contact order ifhe knowingly directly or
indirectly contacted Angela Thompson. A criminal statute defines "knowledge" as:
[a] person knows or acts knowingly or with knowledge when:
(i) he or she is aware of a fact, facts, or circumstances or result
described by a statute defining an offense; or
(ii) he or she has information which would lead a reasonable person
in the same situation to believe that facts exist which facts are described by
a statute defining an offense.
RCW 9A.08.010(l)(b).
5
No. 34209-3-III
State v. Caron
We recite familiar principles of sufficiency of evidence. Evidence is sufficient if,
after viewing it in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could find
each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216,
221-22, 616 P.2d 628 (1980); State v. Witherspoon, 180 Wn.2d 875,883,329 P.3d 888(2014 ). A defendant challenging sufficiency of the evidence at trial admits the truth of
the State's evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom. State v. Witherspoon, 180
Wn.2d at 883. This court defers to the fact finder's credibility determinations and
determinations of the persuasiveness of the evidence. State v. Thomas, 150 Wn.2d 821,
874, 83 P.3d 970 (2004). A verdict may be supported by either circumstantial or direct
evidence, as both may be equally reliable. State v. Brooks, 45 Wn. App. 824, 826, 727
P .2d 988 ( 1986).
A jury may draw inferences from evidence so long as those inferences rationally
relate to the proven facts. State v. Jackson, 112 Wn.2d 867, 875, 774 P.2d 1211 (1989).
A rational connection must exist between the initial fact proved and the further fact
presumed. State v. Jackson, 112 Wn.2d at 875. An inference should not arise when other
reasonable conclusions follow from the circumstances. State v. Bencivenga, 13 7 Wn.2d
703,711,974 P.2d 832 (1999). The jury may infer from one fact the existence of another
essential to guilt, if reason and experience support the inference. Tot v. United States,
319 U.S. 463,467, 63 S. Ct. 1241, 87 L. Ed. 1519 (1943). Nevertheless, essential proofs
of guilt cannot be supplied by a pyramiding of inferences. State v. Bencivenga, 13 7
6
No. 34209-3-III
State v. Caron
Wn.2d at 711; State v. Weaver, 60 Wn.2d 87, 88,371 P.2d 1006 (1962).
Joshuah Caron argues a jury could not reasonably infer that he knowingly
indirectly contacted Angela Thompson when sending a package to Thompson's daughter,
H.T., because: (1) the order only prohibited contact with Thompson, (2) the order did not
list H.T. as a protected person, (3) he addressed the mailed package to H.T., and (4) the
package contained only items for H.T. He reasons that the jury could only have found
knowledge by resorting to guess, speculation and conjecture. We disagree.
Although Joshuah Caron addressed the package to H.T., Caron mailed the package
to Angela Thompson's address. Caron knew or reasonably should have known that a
three-year-old child would not retrieve the package from the mail box and that Angela
Thompson would likely retrieve the package. Caron knew or reasonably should have
known that Thompson would open the package. Caron withheld his full name and his
address from the package front, suggesting he did not wish the retriever to immediately
identify the sender and thereby trick Thompson into opening the package. Caron knew
that H.T. could not read his letter inside the package. The message and photographs
sought to endear Thompson to Caron and reestablish their courtship. Caron did not send
a similar package to the older children. From these facts, the jury could reasonably
conclude that Caron intended to directly contact Thompson, let alone indirectly contact
her. The jury could reasonably conclude that Caron's sole purpose of sending the
package to H.T. was to communicate with Angela Thompson.
7
No. 34209-3-111
State v. Caron
CONCLUSION
We affirm Joshuah Caron's conviction for felony violation of a no-contact order.
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:
Pennell, J.
8