State of Washington v. Martin Figueroa

FILED
August 13, 2015
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
W A State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, )
) No. 32733-7-III
Respondent, )
)
v. )
)
MARTIN FIGUEROA, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
Appellant. )
BROWN, A.C.J. - Under Washington statute RCW 66.44.270(2)(b), it is
unlawful for a minor to be in a public place while exhibiting the effects of having
consumed liquor. One of the elements of the offense is that the suspect must have the
odor of alcohol on his or her breath. RCW 66.44.270(2)(b). A Yakima County Superior
Court judge found Martin Figueroa guilty of being a minor exhibiting the effects of
consuming liquor in public. On appeal, Mr. Figueroa contends the evidence is
insufficient to support the court's finding that his breath smelled of alcohol. We find the
circumstantial evidence sufficient to support this element beyond a reasonable doubt, and
affirm.
No. 32733-7-II1
State v. Figueroa
FACTS
Late on Halloween night in 2013, the Sunnyside police department received a
noise complaint from a homeowner on a dead end street in a residential neighborhood.
Officer Melissa Rivas responded. As she entered the street, her headlights illuminated
several young people in and around a parked car. Officer Rivas saw movement in and
around the car, including the throwing of a blue liquor bottle from the rear passenger area
of the car. She activated her emergency lights and a spotlight and approached on foot.
Officer Rivas asked the four boys and two girls in the car to get out and sit on the
ground while she waited for backup. As they stepped out of the car, she detected the
odor of alcohol. All of the car's occupants were younger than 21 years of age. Officer
Rivas asked each separately whether he or she had been drinking alcohol, and each
indicated he or she had. She smelled alcohol on each of them. Some of them appeared
intoxicated---especially Mr. Figueroa, who had slurred speech and watery, bloodshot
eyes. Mr. Figueroa also became argumentative during the questioning. After backup
arrived, the young people were taken to the police facility, their parents were called, and
they were released to their parents.
The State charged the four boys, including Mr. Figueroa, with being minors in a
public place while exhibiting the effects of consuming liquor. 1 They were tried together.
1 The record does not indicate whether the girls were also charged.
2
No. 32733-7-III
State v. Figueroa
Officer Rivas testified that each of the respondents smelled of alcohol. After the State
rested its case, the four respondents moved to dismiss for failure to prove the specific
element of the odor of alcohol on their breaths. The trial judge granted the motion as it
related to two respondents who had not exhibited other signs of intoxication, but denied
the motion as it related to Mr. Figueroa and another respondent. Eventually, the trial
court acquitted the third respondent and found only Mr. Figueroa guilty of the charge. In
its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial court stated that
I [t]he respondent was verbally combative and argumentative with the
officers. He appeared to Officer Rivas to be under the influence of alcohol.
1 She could also smell the odor of alcohol on the respondent, and the court
I
finds that this odor was coming from his breath.
I
Clerk's Papers at 31.
ANALYSIS
Mr. Figueroa contends the State failed to prove each element of the offense
beyond a reasonable doubt because there was no specific evidence that he had the odor of
alcohol on his breath.
Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if, after viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to the State, we conclude that any rational fact finder could have
found the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Homan, 181 Wash. 2d
102, 105,330 P.3d 182 (2014). Specific to review of bench trials, we determine whether
substantial evidence supports each of the trial court's challenged findings of fact and
3
No. 32733-7-III
State v. Figueroa
whether the findings support the conclusions of law. Id. at 105-06. Substantial evidence
is that quantum of evidence "sufficient to persuade a fair-minded person of the truth of
the asserted premise." Id. at 106. Circumstantial evidence is as reliable as direct
evidence. State v. Arquette, 178 Wash. App. 273, 282,314 P.3d 426 (2013) (citing State v.
Delmarter, 94 Wn.2d 634,638,618 P.2d 99 (1980)). In claiming insufficient evidence,
the appellant necessarily admits the truth of the State's evidence and all reasonable
inferences arising from that evidence. Homan, 181 Wash. 2d at 106. We defer to the trier
of fact's evaluation of the persuasiveness of the evidence, and treat unchallenged findings
as verities. Id.
To prove that Mr. Figueroa violated RCW 66.44.270(2)(b), the State was required
to present evidence that he was under 21 years of age, in a public place or in a motor
vehicle in a public place, and that he exhibited the effects of having consumed liquor.
For the purposes of this subsection, "exhibiting the effects of having consumed liquor"
means that the minor has the odor of liquor on his or her breath and eitheris close to a
container that has had liquor in it or exhibits behavior showing the influence of liquor.
RCW 66.44.270(2)(b). Mr. Figueroa challenges solely the court's finding that he had the
odor of liquor on his breath.
Officer Rivas never testified that she smelled the odor of alcohol specifically on
Mr. Figueroa's breath. She did, however, state that she questioned each juvenile
separately, each indicated that he or she had been drinking alcohol, and each smelled of
4
No. 32733-7-II1
State v. Figueroa
alcohol. She also testified that Mr. Figueroa acted as though he was under the influence
of liquor. Mr. Figueroa contends Officer Rivas's testimony could indicate that the odor
of alcohol was pn his clothing, hair, or skin, caused by spilled liquor. But the additional
evidence that he admitted he had been drinking and exhibited the effects of drinking
alcohol substantially supports the trial court's finding that the odor at least in some
discemable degree came from his breath.
The unchallenged findings establish that Mr. Figueroa was a minor in a public
place and appeared to be under the influence of liquor. We conclude that substantial
evidence supports the trial court's reasonable inference that Mr. Figueroa's breath
smelled of alcohol. Thus, the State met its burden of proof on every element of the
charge of being a minor in a public place while exhibiting the effects of consuming.
liquor. RCW 66.44.270(2)(b).
Affirmed.
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
2.04.060.
~a~
Brown, A.C.J.
WE CONCUR:
5