Opinion
No. 21745-1-III.
Filed: March 9, 2004. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from Superior Court of Spokane County. Docket No. 02-1-02967-2. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 01/14/2003. Judge signing: Hon. Ellen Kalama Clark.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Susan Marie Gasch, Attorney at Law, PO Box 30339, Spokane, WA 99223-3005.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Kevin Michael Korsmo, Attorney at Law, 1100 W Mallon Ave, Spokane, WA 99260-2043.
Andrew J. III Metts, Spokane County Pros Offc, 1100 W Mallon Ave, Spokane, WA 99260-0270.
The intent to commit a crime may be inferred. David Whitehead claimed that a boy gave him a cellular phone when Mr. Whitehead asked him to empty his pockets to check for weapons before they fought. Here, a jury believed that Mr. Whitehead took the phone from the boy with the intent to keep it. We therefore affirm the first degree robbery conviction.
FACTS
Robert Deshner is a high school student. He walked along the Centennial Trail in Spokane, Washington, through Mission Park on his way home from school. Mr. Deshner saw David Whitehead and another man sitting by a dumpster drinking beer. Mr. Deshner followed the trail past the men. According to Mr. Whitehead's friend, Mr. Deshner turned and said something to them. Mr. Whitehead caught up to Mr. Deshner and said, `Are you ready to go? Do you want to fight?' Report of Proceedings (RP) at 23. He unzipped his coat and told Mr. Deshner to empty out his pockets. Mr. Deshner said `no' as he continued to walk away. RP at 23-24. Mr. Whitehead then said, `Empty out your pockets or I'll kill you.' RP at 24. As Mr. Deshner turned to tell him `no,' Mr. Whitehead swung at him. Mr. Deshner ducked but was hit on the forehead. He reached into his pocket and handed his cell phone to Mr. Whitehead. Mr. Deshner ran away across the grass for help. Mr. Whitehead told him to stay on the trail. When police responded about 20 minutes later, they found Mr. Whitehead with Mr. Deshner's cell phone. Mr. Whitehead was arrested and charged with first degree robbery. He was convicted after a jury trial.
DISCUSSION
Our review here is for substantial evidence. State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216, 221, 616 P.2d 628 (1980). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State to determine whether "any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. (emphasis omitted) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)). The elements of the crime may be established by either direct or circumstantial evidence. State v. Thompson, 88 Wn.2d 13, 16, 558 P.2d 202 (1977). We accord circumstantial and direct evidence the same value and leave determinations on issues of conflicting testimony, credibility of witnesses, and the persuasiveness of the evidence to the fact finder. State v. Thomas, Wn.2d 83 P.3d 970, 996-97 (2004); State v. Ainslie, 103 Wn. App. 1, 6, 11 P.3d 318 (2000). A challenge to the sufficiency of evidence admits the truth of the State's evidence and all reasonable inferences. State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992).
A person commits the crime of robbery if he unlawfully takes personal property from another person against that person's will and uses force to retain possession of the property or to prevent or overcome resistance to the taking. RCW 9A.56.190. A person commits first degree robbery if, in the commission of a robbery or in immediate flight therefrom, he inflicts bodily injury. RCW 9A.56.200(1)(a)(iii). Intent to deprive the victim of property is a necessary element. State v. Corwin, 32 Wn. App. 493, 497, 649 P.2d 119 (1982); see also State v. Kjorsvik, 117 Wn.2d 93, 98, 812 P.2d 86 (1991) (intent to steal is an essential element of the crime of robbery). Mr. Whitehead challenges only the intent element.
`A person acts with intent or intentionally when he acts with the objective or purpose to accomplish a result which constitutes a crime.' RCW 9A.08.010(1)(a). `The intent to commit a crime may be inferred if the defendant's conduct and surrounding facts and circumstances plainly indicate such an intent as a matter of logical probability.' State v. Woods, 63 Wn. App. 588, 591, 821 P.2d 1235 (1991) (citing State v. Bergeron, 105 Wn.2d 1, 4, 711 P.2d 1000 (1985)).
Mr. Whitehead claims there was a misunderstanding as to his purpose for ordering Mr. Deshner to empty his pockets; he merely wanted to fight with the boy and wanted to make sure he did not have a weapon. But Mr. Whitehead accepted and retained the cell phone and shooed Mr. Deshner down the trail. The jury was not bound to accept Mr. Whitehead's self-serving depiction of his subjective intent.
From this evidence, any rational trier of fact could have easily inferred the requisite intent and found beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Whitehead intended to deprive Mr. Deshner of his cell phone.
CONCLUSION
There was sufficient evidence for the court to find that Mr. Whitehead intended to deprive the victim of his property. The conviction is affirmed.
A majority of the panel has determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
KATO, A.C.J. and SCHULTHEIS, J., concur.