Opinion
No. 59636-5-I.
June 2, 2008.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 06-1-08266-1, Richard McDermott, J., entered March 5, 2007.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Obieroma challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for taking a motor vehicle without permission in the second degree. The evidence supports his conviction.
Background
Shortly before 1:00 a.m. on January 18, 2006, Federal Way police officer Eric Davis spotted a Jeep Cherokee speeding, drifting out of its lane, and running a red light. He pulled the car over for a traffic stop, but as he approached the car on foot it abruptly accelerated away. He pursued the Jeep as it drove into a cul-de-sac and then back out again. The Jeep continued to evade Davis until the driver either leapt, fell, or was pushed out of the moving Page 2 vehicle.
The Jeep continued through a residential yard, crossed a ditch, flipped onto its side, and crashed into a house. David Obieroma climbed out of the front passenger door, while a second passenger, Tesgaldet Haile, climbed out of a rear door. Both were apprehended and taken to the police station where they were placed in separate cells in a holding area. They were the only people being held at the time.
When Officer Davis spoke with Haile at the scene of the accident, he found him uncooperative. However, once at the station, Haile was more forthcoming. Because Haile appeared willing to talk, Davis left the holding area to get a statement form. Once he left, he heard Obieroma yelling from his cell in the holding area. Although he could hear Obieroma, Davis could not make out what he was saying. When Davis returned to the holding area, he found Haile once again uncooperative.
Obieroma was charged with taking a motor vehicle without permission in the second degree.
Before trial, the parties stipulated that the vehicle was owned by another party, and that neither the driver, Blanche Moimoi, Obieroma, nor Haile had permission to possess, drive, or ride in the vehicle.
At trial, the State introduced photographs of the interior of the Jeep showing that the steering column housing was cracked and the ignition switchwas missing. Officer Davis and two other officers testified the damage to the steering column was typical of a car that had been stolen.
The defense presented no witnesses. Obieroma was convicted as charged. He now appeals.
Standard of Review
When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we must determine, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, 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, 221, 616 P.2d 628 (1980) (quotingJackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979)).
Discussion
Obieroma was convicted of taking a motor vehicle without permission in the second degree. RCW 9A.56.075 states:
A person is guilty of taking a motor vehicle without permission in the second degree if he or she, without the permission of the owner or person entitled to possession, intentionally takes or drives away any automobile or motor vehicle, whether propelled by steam, electricity, or internal combustion engine, that is the property of another, or he or she voluntarily rides in or upon the automobile or motor vehicle with knowledge of the fact that the automobile or motor vehicle was unlawfully taken.
Obieroma argues that the State failed to prove that he knew the Jeep in which he was riding was unlawfully taken. A person knows or acts knowingly or with knowledge when: (1) he is aware of a fact, facts, or circumstances or resultdescribed by a statute defining an offense; or (2) he 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(b)(1), (2).
The State argues that the evidence presented to the jury was sufficient for the jury to find Obieroma had knowledge that the Jeep had been unlawfully taken. It points to the punched ignition and cracked steering column and the three officers who testified that the damage was consistent with a stolen vehicle.
It also points out that Haile once again became uncooperative in the holding area after Obieroma began yelling during Officer Davis' absence. The jury, the State argues, could have made the reasonable inference that whatever Obieroma was yelling not only led to Haile's renewed uncooperativeness, but also revealed Obieroma's guilty knowledge.
Obieroma argues that the photographs showing the punched ignition were taken at close range with a flash, and the State did not present sufficient evidence that someone sitting in the front passenger seat could see the damage, let alone recognize it as evidence of theft.
While two of the photographs are close-ups of the ignition lock, the third is apparently taken from the passenger seat. It clearly shows the damage around the ignition, the lack of an ignition key, and the ignition wires dangling beside the steering column.
State Exhibit 8.
Obieroma also argues that because Officer Davis did not hear what he was yelling inside the holding area, there were many innocuous explanations for his outburst, and only a "speculative pyramiding of inferences" could lead to the conclusion that his yelling was an indication of guilty knowledge.
We defer to the trier of fact to resolve any conflicts in testimony, to weigh the persuasiveness of evidence, and to assess the credibility of the witnesses. We draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence in the prosecution's favor and interpret the evidence most strongly against the defendant. The truth of the prosecution's evidence is assumed, and all inferences that the trier of fact could reasonably draw from it.
State v. Boot, 89 Wn. App. 780, 791, 950 P.2d 964 (1998).
State v. Joy, 121 Wn.2d 333, 339, 851 P.2d 654 (1993); State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992).
State v. Wilson, 71 Wn. App. 880, 891, 863 P.2d 116 (1993),rev'd on other grounds, 125 Wn.2d 212, 883 P.2d 320 (1994).
It was for the jury to draw conclusions regarding Obieroma's outburst and the obviousness and source of the damage to the ignition. While there is no direct evidence that Obieroma knew the Jeep was taken unlawfully, circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence.
State v. Vermillion, 66 Wn. App. 332, 342, 832 P.2d 95 (1992).
We hold that Obieroma's conviction was supported by the evidence.
AFFIRMED.