Opinion
No. 35275-3-II.
May 15, 2007.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Cowlitz County, No. 06-8-00215-9, Stephen M. Warning and James E. Warme, JJ., entered August 15, 2006.
Affirmed by unpublished opinion per Bridgewater, J., concurred in by Houghton, C.J., and Hunt, J.
Allen Lee Heck, a juvenile, appeals his convictions of first degree burglary and indecent liberties. Heck asserts that the State failed to present sufficient evidence of forcible compulsion and trespassing as elements of the charges of indecent liberties and first degree burglary, respectively. Holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions, we affirm.
I. Facts
A.C. and Heck, both students at R.A. Long High School, began dating in September 2005. Heck proposed less than a year later, however, their relationship ended two months after that. Between the breakup in April and the incident on May 11, 2006, their only contact was one e-mail.
On Feb. 7, 2006, the school expelled Heck and obtained a trespass notice for him, effective immediately for an indefinite amount of time. The principal testified that he was present when Heck signed the document and that the document had never been revoked.
On May 11, 2006, a fellow student told A.C. that Heck was on campus. During fourth period, A.C. left class to get a book from her locker. While at her locker, Heck approached A.C. and bit her on the neck. Heck said that he wanted to talk to her before he went back to his class at a neighboring school. She went with him under a staircase in the main hall. She testified at trial that rather than talk, "He started grabbing my boobs and then he kissed me some more and then once he grabbed my vaginal area very hard and it hurt." RP at 18. She also testified that she could not move because Heck trapped her against the wall with his feet and arm. A.C. testified that she told Heck to stop and leave her alone and attempted to push him away. The incident lasted 15 minutes.
The State charged Heck, a juvenile, with one count of first degree burglary under RCW 9A.52.020(1)(b), and one count of indecent liberties with forcible compulsion under RCW 9A.44.100(1)(a). A judge found Heck guilty and sentenced him to 15 to 36 weeks in juvenile detention.
At trial, another student testified that she saw Heck walk out the door from under the staircase and then saw her friend, A.C., crying. The friend stated that A.C. looked "[s]hocked" and was "bawling" and incomprehensible. RP at 31.
Heck testified that the bite was playful and that he did not put his arm across A.C.'s chest, preventing her from walking away. He also testified that he thought the trespass notice was lifted because he had spoken to the superintendent of the school about the possibility of attending in the fall.
The trial court found Heck guilty of one count of first degree burglary and one count of indecent liberties. In order to convict Heck for the first degree burglary charge, the judge had to find that Heck: (1) with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein; (2) entered or remained unlawfully in the school; (3) and while in the building or in immediate flight therefrom, he assaulted A.C. RCW 9A.52.020(1)(b). To convict on the indecent liberties charge, the judge had to find that Heck: (1) knowingly caused another person who is not his or her spouse to have sexual contact with him; (2) by forcible compulsion. RCW 9A.44.100(1)(a).
Heck appeals. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for both charges.
Analysis
In considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the State's evidence, this court, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, must decide whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216, 220-22, 616 P.2d 628 (1980). When the sufficiency of evidence is challenged in a criminal case, this court draws all reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor of the State and interprets them most strongly against the defendant. State v. Partin, 88 Wn.2d 899, 906-07, 567 P.2d 1136 (1977). A claim of insufficiency admits the truth of the State's evidence and all inferences that reasonably can be drawn therefrom. State v. Theroff, 25 Wn. App. 590, 593, 608 P.2d 1254, aff'd, 95 Wn.2d 385 (1980). State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992). Credibility determinations are for the trier of fact and are not subject to review. State v. Thomas, 150 Wn.2d 821, 875, 83 P.3d 970 (2004). This court must defer to the trier of fact on issues of conflicting testimony, credibility of witnesses, and the persuasiveness of the evidence. Thomas, 150 Wn.2d at 875.
I. Burglary
Heck argues that, with respect to the charge of first degree burglary, the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant unlawfully entered or remained in R.A. Long High School. He also contends that the State failed to present sufficient evidence that Heck committed an assault at the school.
There is evidence to support the charge of first degree burglary. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, it appears that Heck had no other business in the high school that day. He was solely there to see A.C. and he assaulted her by biting, restraining, touching her, and committing indecent liberties (as this opinion subsequently details), thereby intending to commit a crime in the building and then actually committing an assault. Based on the testimony from the principal, the State established that Heck entered and remained in the building unlawfully. The testimony of Heck does not contradict the principal's account. Heck testified that he spoke to the superintendent, which he acknowledges was 50 or 60 yards away from the school in a separate building, about being readmitted for the fall. Heck did not testify that the superintendent ever indicated that the no-trespass order was revoked. Based on the principal's testimony, there is sufficient evidence for the court to find that the defendant unlawfully entered and remained in R.A. Long High School on May 11, 2006. The evidence was sufficient for any rational trier of fact to have found the essential elements of first degree burglary.
II. Indecent Liberties
Heck also asserts that the State fails to show that he committed a sexual act with forcible compulsion. This court will not evaluate the credibility of the witnesses; it will view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. The testimony of A.C. is sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Heck was guilty of indecent liberties and committed an assault. A.C.'s testimony establishes the requirements for indecent liberties. A.C. testified that Heck trapped her with his feet and held her with his arm. She testified that she told him to stop and leave her alone. She testified that she tried to push him away but the position he had her in prevented it. When asked if she felt that she could get away, she responded "No." RP at 20. She testified that he had a bruise on her right shoulder and breast and that her vaginal area hurt for a couple of days. A.C.'s testimony is sufficient to establish forcible compulsion, and her testimony is further supported by the additional witness testimony about the victim's state shortly after the incident. Because there is sufficient evidence to show that Heck knowingly caused another person to have sexual contact with him by forcible compulsion, we also affirm the conviction for indecent liberties.
Affirmed.
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 pursuant to RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered.
Houghton, C.J. and Hunt, J., concur.