Opinion
No. 37579-6-II.
September 22, 2009.
Appeal from the Superior Court, Cowlitz County, No. 07-1-01115-1, James E. Warme, J., entered April 8, 2008.
Affirmed by unpublished opinion per Hunt, J., concurred in by Penoyar, A.C.J., and Quinn-Brintnall, J.
Richard Martin Barnes appeals his jury conviction for unlawful imprisonment of his wife, Tamara Barnes. He argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. We disagree and affirm his conviction.
FACTS I. Unlawful Imprisonment
On August 19, 2007, at approximately 11:00 pm, Crystal Martin was smoking a cigarette on her front porch when she heard loud screaming and crying from a female voice across the street. Crystal retrieved her husband, Shannon Martin, from inside the home and brought him out to the porch with her. They both clearly heard a woman yelling, "Let me go," and, "Let go of me." The Martins described the woman's screaming as "terrified," "scared," and "upset."
We use first names for clarity throughout this opinion. We intend no disrespect.
Shannon then crossed the street and verified that the noise was coming from the house across the street, diagonally opposite to theirs. As the screaming and crying continued, Shannon returned home and called the police. Approximately ten minutes after it had started, the screaming and crying stopped. The Martins remained outside, waiting for the police to arrive; during this time, they did not see anyone enter or exit the house across the street.
Officer Mike Berndt arrived at the scene, followed by Officers Ralph Webb and Dawn Taylor. The officers approached the house across the street; Berndt knocked loudly on the front door and identified the three of them as police officers. At the same time, a police dispatcher placed a phone call to the house. The officers waited a few minutes for a response, but no one answered the door, and the officers heard nothing from inside.
The officers proceeded to the side of the house, where they heard a television playing through an open window. Berndt continued to announce their presence as "Longview Police" in a loud commanding voice and instructed the occupants to come to the front door. Again, the officers received no response from inside the home. Berndt removed the screen from the open window and pushed the blinds to the side in order to see into the house. Through the window, the officers saw a mostly dark master bedroom illuminated in part by the light from a television set. They could not see anyone inside.
The master bedroom had only two exits: the door to the rest of the house, located on the far side of the room, and the window near where the officers stood. The opposite wall of the bedroom had doors to a walk-in closet and a bathroom; the closet door was ajar and the bathroom door was closed. A high platform bed stood in the center of the room, between the bathroom door and the exit door, with nightstands on either side.
Through the open window, the officers heard movement inside the house and a muffled male voice sternly and repeatedly say, "Shut up." Berndt observed the bathroom door opening, and he saw Barnes "sneakingly" approach the bathroom area after turning off the television in the other part of the room.
The three officers then saw Tamara standing in the bathroom doorway. She appeared distressed and scared with wide eyes and a reddened face. Making eye contact with the officers through the window, Tamara pointed to the ground between the bathroom door and the bed, indicating to the officers that Barnes lay at her feet. From outside, the officers could not see Barnes in this hiding place. Although Berndt ordered Barnes to stand up and show his hands, he refused to comply.
Berndt instructed Tamara to unlock the front door to let the officers into the house. Tamara unlocked the door for Taylor and Webb, and Berndt remained at the open window to keep watch.
Several minutes later, Taylor and Webb located Barnes in the bedroom, lying on his stomach on the floor between the bed and the wall with his left hand and arm underneath his upper torso and his head next to the bathroom doorway. Taylor and Webb repeatedly shouted at Barnes to show his hands. But Barnes did not respond except to make snoring noises, apparently pretending to be asleep. The officers could not see Barnes's left hand and feared that he might have a weapon hidden under his body. Webb nudged Barnes's foot to see if he would respond and Taylor used her flashlight to "hit" Barnes on the back of the thigh several times. Barnes still failed to respond.
All three police officers testified that Barnes pretended to be asleep when they confronted him, despite the fact that they had seen him walking away from the television several minutes earlier.
As Webb handcuffed Barnes, he (Barnes) acted sleepy and groggy. Although Barnes had no trouble walking to the patrol car, Webb noticed that his breath smelled of intoxicants, his eyes were watery, and his face was flushed.
Taylor spoke with Tamara inside the house. Tamara still seemed shaken and upset; she continued to cry and her face reddened. Taylor asked Tamara to show her the home's phones and their locations, but Tamara could not lead Taylor to any working phones. Instead, Tamara followed as Taylor looked through the home for phones and phone cords.
In the master bedroom, a cellular phone lay on top of one of the bedside nightstands. Earlier, Barnes's position on the floor had blocked Tamara's access to this phone. Taylor also found the handset to a cordless landline phone lying on the bed. The base to this phone was disconnected from the wall jack and missing a cord. Taylor later found this cord in the garage, but she did not find any other phones inside the home.
Approximately 50 feet separate the home's garage from its the master bedroom area with a long hallway and a laundry room in between.
Outside the home, Taylor located the phone box and observed that someone had tampered with it by removing its padlock and disconnecting the main line. A new silver screw held the phone box closed in place of the missing padlock.
Meanwhile, in the patrol car, Berndt read Barnes his Miranda rights. Barnes responded that he understood his rights and agreed to speak with Berndt. Barnes stated that he and Tamara had been watching television together in the bedroom. When asked why he had hidden and had refused to answer the door, Barnes responded that he "wasn't hiding in the bathroom, she [Tamara] was." Barnes also stated that "nothing" had happened with Tamara. After Berndt finished taking these statements, he arrested Barnes.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966).
II. Procedure
The State charged Barnes with one count of unlawful imprisonment and one count of interference with domestic violence reporting.
During the two-day jury trial, the Martins and the three police officers testified for the State. Tamara declined to testify, asserting her right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Barnes did not testify, nor did he call any witnesses.
The jury found Barnes guilty of unlawful imprisonment and not guilty of interference with domestic violence reporting. The trial court sentenced Barnes within the standard range to 30 days in jail and one year of community custody.
Barnes appeals.
ANALYSIS
Barnes argues that insufficient evidence supports his conviction for unlawful imprisonment. We disagree.
I. Standard of Review
To determine whether sufficient evidence supports a conviction, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the State and decide whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Valencia, 148 Wn. App. 302, 313, 198 P.3d 1065 (2009) (quoting State v. Rempel, 114 Wn.2d 77, 82, 785 P.2d 1134 (1990)). When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of evidence in a criminal case, we must draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor of the State and interpret the evidence most strongly against the defendant. State v. Partin, 88 Wn.2d 899, 906-07, 567 P.2d 1136 (1977). We treat direct and circumstantial evidence as equally reliable, and we "defer to the trier of fact on issues of conflicting testimony, credibility of witnesses, and the persuasiveness of the evidence." State v. Thomas, 150 Wn.2d 821, 874-75, 83 P.3d 970 (2004).
II. Unlawful Imprisonment A. Sufficient Evidence
Barnes contends that insufficient evidence supported his unlawful imprisonment conviction because the State failed to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, Barnes argues that the trial court's judgment against him for unlawful imprisonment violated his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the Washington Constitution, Article 1, Section 3.
To prove unlawful imprisonment, the State must show that Barnes "knowingly restrain[ed] another person." RCW 9A.40.040. A person acts with knowledge when "he is aware of a fact, facts, or circumstances or result described by a statute defining an offense; or he has information which would lead a reasonable man in the same situation to believe that facts exist which facts are described by a statute defining an offense." RCW 9A.08.010(1)(b). The Legislature defines "restrain" as "restrict[ing] a person's movements without consent and without legal authority in a manner which interferes substantially with his liberty." RCW 9A.40.010(1). Furthermore, "[r]estraint is `without consent' if it is accomplished by . . . physical force, intimidation, or deception." RCW 9A.40.010(1). Substantial interference with a person's liberty requires a real or material interference with the victim's liberty, not merely a petty annoyance, a slight inconvenience, or an imaginary conflict. State v. Washington, 135 Wn. App. 42, 50, 143 P.3d 606 (2006), review denied, 160 Wn.2d 1017 (2007).
Division Three of our court has held that obstruction of a solitary doorway exit is sufficient evidence to support an unlawful imprisonment conviction. State v. Allen, 116 Wn. App. 454, 466, 66 P.3d 653 (2003). In that case, the victim initially went willingly with Allen when he picked her up at home, but she later changed her mind after they had driven around for a few hours. Id. at 457. When they arrived at an apartment, the victim screamed repeatedly and tried to exit the room, but Allen prohibited her from leaving by standing in the only doorway. Id. at 458. Division Three also upheld an unlawful imprisonment conviction where the victim could move about an apartment but could not leave or get help because the defendant physically threatened the victim and her mother. State v. Davis, 133 Wn. App. 415, 425, 138 P.3d 132 (2006), rev'd on other grounds, 163 Wn.2d 606 (2008).
Here, similar to Allen, Tamara screamed at Barnes to "let [her] go." Later, instead of allowing her to exit the bedroom or the house, he lay outside the bathroom door to trap her inside the bathroom. And similar to Davis, Barnes's position on the floor not only prevented Tamara from leaving the bathroom, but also inhibited her access to a phone and her ability to call for help. The only phone in the house, the cellular phone, lay on the nightstand, with Barnes situated between it and Tamara.
The record does not indicate whether this cellular phone was operational.
Barnes had apparently disabled the home's cordless landline phone. Someone had unplugged the base of the cordless phone in the bedroom and hidden the phone cord in the garage. Someone had also tampered with the home's phone box and disconnected the main phone line.
Tamara could not direct Taylor to any working phones in the house. No evidence supported that Tamara had disabled the home's phones or phone lines. Being the only other occupant of the house, the circumstances suggest that Barnes disconnected the cordless phone by unplugging it, hid the phone cord in the garage, and disconnected the main phone line to prevent Tamara from phoning for help.
The evidence demonstrates that Barnes knowingly restrained Tamara without her consent. From across the street, the Martins heard a terrified woman screaming "Let me go," and, "Let go of me," inside the Barneses' house for approximately ten minutes. The Martins did not see anyone enter or exit the house until the police arrived. The police officers heard a male voice sternly and repeatedly say, "Shut up." Through the window, Tamara indicated to the police officers how Barnes was hiding at her feet. Once inside, the police officers found only Barnes and Tamara in the house. Viewed in a light most favorable to the State, this evidence shows that Tamara yelled at Barnes to release her from some kind of confinement and he did not comply. Barnes further tried to restrain Tamara by prohibiting her access to a phone and police assistance.
The evidence also demonstrates that Barnes sought to confine Tamara to the bathroom without her consent. Barnes positioned himself on the floor with his head outside the doorway of the bathroom where Tamara hid. The bathroom contained no windows or alternative exits. The only possible exit was through the bedroom to which Barnes blocked Tamara's access. The bedroom contained one window and one door to the rest of the house. Barnes lay between Tamara and these possible exits. Tamara exited the bathroom only after making contact with the police officers and showing them how Barnes's position obstructed the bathroom doorway.
Furthermore, the restraint to which Barnes subjected Tamara constituted a real and material interference with her liberty, not mere petty annoyance, slight inconvenience, or imaginary conflict. Washington, 135 Wn. App. at 50. Barnes restricted Tamara's liberty by blockading her in the bathroom and preventing her from calling for help. And, as the various witnesses heard in her voice and saw on her face, Barnes's behavior distressed and frightened Tamara.
The State's evidence shows that Barnes knowingly used physical force to restrain Tamara, yelled controlling words at her, used physical intimidation to prohibit her from leaving the house, and used deception to disable the landline phone, preventing her from making any phone calls for help. Barnes rendered it impossible for Tamara to access the outside world, which substantially interfered with her liberty. Viewed in a light most favorable to the State, sufficient evidence supports Barnes's conviction for unlawful imprisonment.
B. Ambiguous Evidence
Barnes also argues that the State's evidence supports innocent inferences as much as guilty ones. The test, however, is whether sufficient evidence supports the jury's verdict that Barnes unlawfully imprisoned Tamara. Therefore, we do not address Barnes's argument about ambiguity of the evidence.
We affirm.
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.
QUINN-BRINTNALL, J. and PENOYAR, A.C.J., concur.