From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. C.H.N

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two
Aug 7, 2007
140 Wn. App. 1003 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007)

Opinion

No. 34862-4-II.

August 7, 2007.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clark County, No. 06-8-00072-8, Robert L. Harris, J., entered May 26, 2006.


Affirmed by unpublished opinion per Houghton, C.J., concurred in by Bridgewater and Hunt, JJ.


C.H.N. appeals his indecent exposure adjudication, arguing that insufficient evidence supported the adjudication. We affirm.

FACTS

On or about September 6, 2005, Nina Sarkinen began walking her young daughter to and from elementary school while pushing her infant son in a stroller. On or about September 26, while walking home after picking up her daughter from school, Sarkinen passed C.H.N's home and observed him wearing women's thong underwear that exposed his genitals.

On or about September 28, Sarkinen took a different path to school. The alternative route still required her to pass C.H.N.'s home, just from a different direction. As Sarkinen passed his home, he approached her and her children and exposed his buttocks.

On November 3, Officer Worsman contacted C.H.N. at his high school and questioned him about exposing himself. Eventually, C.H.N. admitted that he exposed himself on a few occasions because he found it sexually exciting. The State filed three indecent exposure complaints against him.

The juvenile court adjudicated C.H.N. guilty of two counts of indecent exposure. He appeals.

ANALYSIS

C.H.N. challenges the sufficiency of evidence in his adjudication. He contends that the State failed to show that he acted with knowledge that his actions were likely to cause reasonable affront or alarm.

Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if, after viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational fact finder could have found essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992). "A claim of insufficiency admits the truth of the State's evidence and all inferences that reasonably can be drawn therefrom." Salinas, 119 Wn.2d at 201. Credibility determinations are for the fact finder and are not subject to review. State v. Camarillo, 115 Wn.2d 60, 71, 794 P.2d 850 (1990). We defer to the fact finder on issues of conflicting testimony, credibility of witnesses, and the persuasiveness of the evidence. State v. Walton, 64 Wn. App. 410, 415-16, 824 P.2d 533 (1992).

Indecent exposure occurs when a person "intentionally makes any open and obscene exposure of his or her person or the person of another knowing that such conduct is likely to cause reasonable affront or alarm." RCW 9A.88.010(1).

C.H.N. argues that the State failed to prove that he knew his conduct was likely to cause alarm because Sarkinen never said that his conduct actually alarmed or affronted her. But the statute does not require the State to show that the victim was actually affronted or alarmed. Rather, the State must simply show that Nelson "[knew] that [his] conduct [was] likely to cause reasonable affront or alarm." RCW 9A.88.010(1) (emphasis added).

The juvenile court found that "[C.H.N.] did intentionally make an open and obscene exposure of his person, knowing such conduct was likely to cause reasonable affront," because Worsman's and Sarkinen's testimony were credible and persuasive. Supp. Clerk's Papers at 50. (emphasis added). We do not review credibility determinations on appeal. Walton, 64 Wn. App. at 415-16. Thus, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the fact finder could have reasonably found that C.H.N. knew his actions were likely to cause affront or alarm.

Because a rational fact finder could have found that C.H.N. knew his conduct was likely to cause reasonable affront or alarm, sufficient evidence supported the adjudications of indecent exposure.

Affirmed.

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.

Houghton, C.J.

BRIDGEWATER, J., HUNT, J. concur.


Summaries of

State v. C.H.N

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two
Aug 7, 2007
140 Wn. App. 1003 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007)
Case details for

State v. C.H.N

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. C.H.N., Appellant

Court:The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two

Date published: Aug 7, 2007

Citations

140 Wn. App. 1003 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007)
140 Wash. App. 1003