Opinion
No. 54046-7-I
Filed: December 6, 2004 UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from Superior Court of King County. Docket No: 03-8-04098-5. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 03/24/2004. Judge signing: Hon. Nicole K. MacInnes.
Counsel for Appellant(s), David L. Donnan, Washington Appellate Project, 1511 3rd Ave Ste 701, Seattle, WA 98101-3635.
Thomas Michael Kummerow, Washington Appellate Project, 1511 3rd Ave Ste 701, Seattle, WA 98101-3635.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Prosecuting Atty King County, King Co Pros/App Unit Supervisor, W554 King County Courthouse, 516 Third Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104.
Patrick Joseph Preston, King County Prosecutor's Office, 516 3rd Ave Ste W554, Seattle, WA 98104-2362.
Evidence sufficient to support a juvenile adjudication of guilt exists when any rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the charged crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, there is ample evidence that A.V. knowingly started a fire and recklessly damaged the residence. Further, the entry of the delayed findings of fact and conclusions of law did not prejudice A.V.'s case.
FACTS
On July 14, 2003, 14-year-old A.V. was looking after his 11-year-old brother at the family home in South Seattle. Fireworks were retrieved from their mother's closet. At least one of the fireworks, probably a Roman candle or bottle rocket, was lit and when it ignited a fire ensued. The fire department was called to extinguish the fire.
A short time later a fire investigator arrived at the scene. He noted the primary damage to the home was inside a second-floor bedroom. The fire had been extinguished in that room and a mattress and box springs were removed from the bedroom. Soot stained the walls, ceiling and windows, even outside of the bedroom. The investigator ruled out accidental causes of the fire. He concluded the fire started from spent fireworks in the bedroom that intertwined with the mattress and box spring. He found quite an assortment of unspent fireworks in the bedroom and a lighter in the bathroom. Even though some of the fireworks were attached to broken sticks, the investigator stated the fireworks were still functional.
At the scene, the investigator spoke with the two boys. After determining that A.V. had a sufficient understanding of right and wrong, the investigator advised A.V. of his Constitutional rights. Both boys told the investigator that A.V. lit the firework that caused the fire. The investigator testified that A.V. said "he was upstairs in the bedroom and that he used the red lighter, which I found in the bathroom, to light a Roman candle that he thought was empty. And that when it started, in his words, it went kaboom, and at that point he put it down on the mattress." A.V. and unidentified persons at the scene, likely two other juveniles, attempted to put out the fire. When that failed, neighbors called the fire department. At that time, A.V. was emphatic that he was the person who lit the firework and that his younger brother had nothing to do with the fire. At that time A.V. did not mention any other boys being at the scene when the firework was lit.
The State charged A.V. with reckless burning in the first degree, a violation of RCW 9A.48.040. An adjudication hearing was held on March 8, 2004. At the hearing, A.V.'s younger brother, R., said that a firework lit in the upstairs bedroom caused the fire. He indicated his brother brought fireworks out of a closet in the home. These fireworks were leftover from the Fourth of July. For the first time, R. indicated that a friend lit the firework, not A.V. He admitted he was worried that the house would burn down after the bed caught fire. A.V. testified that friends were visiting from a neighboring home. He admitted retrieving fireworks, but claimed he did so at a neighbor's request because they belonged to that young man. A.V. claimed a discussion followed about whether one of the fireworks with a piece broken off would ignite. He admitted the fuse was intact. A.V. then claims the friend lit the firework even though he told him not to. After the fire department arrived, A.V. and the other boys waited nearby. A.V. claims he told his friend that he would take the blame because he did not think much was going to happen. A.V. also admitted he spoke with the investigator and took responsibility for starting the fire. A.V. said he did not tell his mother that his friend started the fire until months later, after he was charged with the crime. Near the end of his testimony he somewhat reluctantly said he was called to court because he started a fire.
Counsel for the defense argued that the friend started the fire, and that A.V. took the blame to cover for him. Counsel also argued that A.V. did not knowingly start the fire due to the broken stick of the firework that caused the damage.
In adjudicating A.V.'s guilt, the juvenile court made a number of oral findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court held: "To take a firework and deliberately hold a lit lighter to the fuse is causing a fire for the — knowingly causing a fire for the purpose of that element of the crime in the charge in this case of reckless burning in the first degree." The court then indicated that "[t]o take a firework . . . and to light the fuse in the bedroom of a house creates a substantial risk that if it [i]s not a dud, that something like this is going to happen." The court concluded that lighting a firework inside a bedroom constituted "a gross deviation from the standard of care that even a reasonable 14-year-old would engage in." Finally, the court rejected the boys' attempt to blame a neighbor boy indicating that "I find beyond a reasonable doubt that [A.V.], as both boys told the police on that day, is the one who committed this act of knowingly causing the fire which thereby recklessly damaged the property at the residence."
Sixteen days after the hearing the order of disposition was filed. Approximately one week later the order was appealed. A.V. claims there is insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's disposition that he knowingly started a fire, thus recklessly damaged his residence. At the time of the appeal, the court had not entered written findings of fact and conclusions of law required by JuCR 7.11(d). Over 4 months after the appeal was filed, and 50 days after the opening brief was filed, findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed below and designated to this court. In addition, the deputy prosecutor filed a declaration stating he did not tailor the findings to the appeal filed by A.V.
ANALYSIS
A.V. claims the State presented insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the element that he knowingly started the fire that caused damage to the residence. To determine whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and ask whether any rational fact finder could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence admits the truth of the State's evidence and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom. To determine whether the necessary quantum of proof exists, this court need not be convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; we need only be satisfied that there was substantial evidence to support the State's case.
State v. Varga, 151 Wn.2d 179, 201, 86 P.3d 139 (2004); State v. Wentz, 149 Wn.2d 342, 347, 68 P.3d 282 (2003) (citing State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216, 221, 616 P.2d 628 (1980).
State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992).
State v. Galisia, 63 Wn. App. 833, 838, 822 P.2d 303 (1992) (citing State v. McKeown, 23 Wn. App. 582, 588, 596 P.2d 1100 (1979)).
Under the reckless burning statute, RCW 9A.48.040, "[a] person is guilty of reckless burning in the first degree if he recklessly damages a building or other structure . . . by knowingly causing a fire or explosion." Further, under RCW 9A.08.010(1)(c), a person acts recklessly when he "knows of and disregards a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and his disregard of such substantial risk is a gross deviation from conduct that a reasonable man would exercise in the same situation."
Under the standard set forth above, a review of the record shows there is substantial evidence to show that A.V. was fully aware he was lighting a Roman candle or other firework by deliberately setting a flame from a lighter to it. By lighting this firework indoors, A.V. also knew of and disregarded a substantial risk that a wrongful act would occur. Even had A.V. entertained doubts about whether the firework would light, his act was a gross deviation from what a reasonable person, or reasonable 14-year-old, would exercise in such a situation. Further, as a result of his action, the residence was damaged. The juvenile court's adjudication of guilt is affirmed.
In his opening brief filed with this court, A.V. alleged the juvenile court erred by failing to enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by JuCR 7.11(d). The court entered the findings and conclusions 50 days after A.V.'s brief was filed. Although the practice of submitting late findings and conclusions is disfavored, entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law during the pendency of a criminal appeal does not require reversal unless the delayed entry was prejudicial to the juvenile respondent and the findings and conclusions have not been altered to address issues and arguments raised by the appeal.
State v. Cannon, 130 Wn.2d 313, 329-30, 922 P.2d 1293 (1996) (citing State v. McGary, 37 Wn. App. 856, 861, 683 P.2d 1125 (1984)).
Here, it is apparent that no prejudice flowed to A.V. because of the late filing of the findings and conclusions. A comparison of the tardy findings and conclusions with the oral ruling of the court below shows that the State did not tailor or alter the findings and conclusions to meet arguments raised by A.V. in his brief.
The adjudication of guilt and disposition of the juvenile court are affirmed.
COLEMAN, J. and AGID, J., Concur.