Opinion
No. 52194-2-I.
Filed: March 22, 2004. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from Superior Court of King County. Docket No. 02-1-05797-3. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 03/10/2003. Judge signing: Hon. Catherine D Shaffer.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Washington Appellate Project, Attorney at Law, Cobb Building, 1305 4th Avenue, Ste 802, Seattle, WA 98101.
Sharon Jean Blackford, Attorney at Law, 1218 3rd Ave Ste 1800, Seattle, WA 98101.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Prosecuting Atty King County, King County Prosecutor/appellate Unit, 1850 Key Tower, 700 Fifth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104.
Timothy John Leary, Attorney at Law, W554 King Co Cthse, 516 3rd Ave, Seattle, WA 98104-2385.
Samuel Huniu appeals from convictions for felony violation of a no contact order and making a false statement to a public servant. He argues that the admission of his misstatement of his identity violated the corpus delecti rule. His due process challenge to the to convict instruction is controlled by State v. Carmen, 118 Wn. App. 655, 77 P.3d 368 (2003). We affirm.
In July, 2002 at a motel, the Des Moines police arrested Christine Peterson on outstanding warrants. As she was being taken into custody, she whispered to one of the officers that the man who was also in her room was Samuel Huniu. A no contact order prohibited Huniu from having contact with Peterson. When an officer asked Huniu his name, he responded "Chan Ra." Huniu's appearance did not match the physical description of Chan Ra provided by the police dispatcher, so he was taken into custody. Although Huniu subsequently acknowledged his true last name, this information was not offered at trial.
Report of Proceedings (Feb. 20, 2003) at 83.
Huniu argues that admission of his statement that he was Chan Ra violated the corpus delecti rule. But corpus delecti does not apply to the admission of this statement because it is not a confession. State v. Aten, 130 Wn.2d 640, 655-56, 927 P.2d 210 (1996). Huniu's false statement was the crime the State alleged he committed. The trial court did not err in admitting it.
He also contends that the jury should have been asked in the to convict instruction to determine whether the no contact orders he had previously violated were issued under one of several statutes. Relying on Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), Huniu argues that the failure to do so violated his right to due process by failing to require the jury to find an essential element of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. But after Huniu's brief was filed, this court decided State v. Carmen, 118 Wn. App. 655, 77 P.3d 368 (2003). Carmen addressed the precise question he raises and concluded that while a jury must find that a defendant previously violated two no contact orders, whether the orders were issued pursuant to one of the statutes listed in RCW 26.50.110(5) is an evidentiary question for the court. Id. at 663-64. Huniu stipulated to the existence of the two no contact order violations and thus did not challenge their admissibility. Huniu's argument on appeal fails.
The statutes include RCW 10.99, 26.09, 26.10, 26.26, 26.50, or 74.34. RCW 26.50.110(5).
We affirm.
APPELWICK and Becker., JJ., concur.