State Of Washington v. Gene L. Yount

LE1
11 14 " AP, I I
A,n 8: L" I
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF W
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 449.1
Respondent,
V.
GENE L. YOUNT, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MAXA, J. — Gene Yount appeals his second degree theft convictions. He argues that
there is insufficient evidence to support these convictions. Because there is sufficient evidence
of each of the elements of these offenses, we affirm.
FACTS
On 4, 2013, Karen Nelson out at the Safeway in Belfair. After
January was checking
checking out, Nelson placed her wallet in her purse and loaded her groceries into her cart. Inside
her wallet was a case containing $ 1, 000 and credit cards. Nelson proceeded directly out to her
car. After loading her groceries into her car, she noticed that her wallet was missing.
Nelson searched for her wallet in her car and in the store, but could not find it. Safeway
employee Jennifer Bobb subsequently informed Nelson that her wallet had been turned in to lost
and found, and gave it to her. However, Nelson discovered that her case containing the money
and credit cards was missing. Bobb pointed out Yount as the person who had turned in the
wallet. Nelson approached Yount and demanded he give her the money back. Yount denied any
knowledge of the money. Bobb called 9 - 1 - 1.
Deputy R. Bradley Trout arrived and talked with both Nelson and Yount. After speaking
Trout Michelle Williams to the store'. s video
with Yount, Deputy asked Deputy view
44993 -5 -II
surveillance. As Deputy Williams headed into the store, Yount told Deputy Trout that he had the
case in his vest pocket inside his friend' s car. Deputies located the case containing money and
credit cards inside Yount' s vest pocket in his friend' s car.
The State charged Yount with two counts of second degree theft. A jury found Yount
guilty of both counts. Yount appeals.
ANALYSIS
Yount argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his theft convictions.
Specifically, Yount argues the State did not prove he wrongfully obtained or exerted
unauthorized control over the property.' We disagree.
Evidence is legally sufficient to support a guilty verdict if any _rational trier of fact,
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could find the elements of the
charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Montgomery, 163 Wash. 2d 577, 586, 183 P.3d
267 ( 2008). We interpret all reasonable inferences in the State' s favor. State v. Hosier, 157
Wash. 2d 1, 8, 133 P.3d 936 ( 2006). Direct and circumstantial evidence carry the same weight.
State v. Varga, 151 Wash. 2d 179, 201, 86 P.3d 139 ( 2004). " `` The jury is permitted to infer from
one fact[,] the existence of another essential to guilt, if reason and experience support the
inference.' " State v. Jackson, 112 Wash. 2d 867, 875, 774 P.2d 1211 ( 1989) ( quoting Tot v. United
States, 319 U.S. 463, 467, 63 S. Ct. 1241, 87 L. Ed. 1519 ( 1943)). "[ C] redibility determinations
are for the trier of fact and are not subject to review." State v. Cantu, 156 Wash. 2d 819, 831, 132
P.3d 725 ( 2006) ( citing State v. Camarillo, 115 Wash. 2d 60, 71, 794 P.2d 850 ( 1990)). " An
essential function of the fact finder is to discount theories which it determines unreasonable."
Yount does not dispute that the case contained cash in excess of $750 as well as an access
device, specifically a
credit card. Yount also does not, appear to challenge whether the State
proved he took the case with the intent to deprive Nelson of the property.
2
44993 -5 -II
State v. Bencivenga, 137 Wash. 2d 703, 709, 974 P.2d 832 ( 1999) ( citing State v. Snider, 70 Wash. 2d
326, 327, 422 P.2d 816 ( 1967)).
A person is guilty of theft in the second degree if he or she commits theft of .. .
p] roperty or services which exceed(s) seven hundred fifty dollars in value but does not exceed
five thousand dollars in value ... or an access device." RCW 9A. 56. 040( 1)( a) & ( d). " `` Theft'
means ... [ t] o wrongfully obtain or exert unauthorized control over the property or services of
another or the value thereof, with intent to deprive him or her of such property or services."
RCW 9A.56. 020( 1)( a). To " ``[ w] rongfully obtain[ ]' or `` exert[ ] unauthorized control' [ is] [ t] o
take the property or services of another." RCW 9A. 56. 010( 22)( a).
Yount appears to argue that because the State failed to present sufficient evidence that
Yount took the wallet from the checkout counter, there is insufficient evidence to show Yount
wrongfully obtained or exerted unauthorized control over the money and credit cards. However,
a rational trier of fact could reasonably conclude that Yount wrongfully took Nelson' s case and
credit cards. It is undisputed that the case with money and credit cards went missing from
Nelson' s wallet and that during the time the case was missing Yount had access to the wallet.
Yount ultimately admitted he had the case in his vest pocket inside his friend' s car. Deputies
recovered the missing case in Yount' s vest pocket. This evidence was sufficient for the trier of
fact to conclude that Yount took the case.
3
44993 -5 -II
We affirm Yount' s theft convictions.
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.
MAXA, J.
1 J#
We concur:
f
BJ' ZGET?;J.
F
0