Opinion
No. 28512-0-III.
Filed: January 4, 2011. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Benton County, No. 09-8-00432-2, Vic L. VanderSchoor, J., entered September 28, 2009.
Affirmed by unpublished opinion per Brown, J., concurred in by Korsmo, A.C.J., and Sweeney, J.
Mariel Ocampo appeals her disposition for minor in possession/consumption of alcohol on the grounds the State did not adequately prove she was in a public place when she exhibited the effects of having consumed alcohol. We disagree, and affirm.
FACTS
On April 11, 2009 at about 12:30 a.m., Officer Chris Bennett drove by a closed business, Pacific Roofing, in his patrol car. He observed several juveniles standing under a covered parking area near this business. As he passed, the juveniles ducked down. When Officer Bennett turned his car around to speak with the teenagers, the juveniles opened an unlocked door to the business and ran upstairs.
Several other officers arrived at the scene to assist Officer Bennett. Officer Bennett entered the unsecured door and began calling to the juveniles to come downstairs. Eventually, three of the teenagers complied with this request and came down to speak with the officers. Ms. Ocampo and the others remained upstairs.
Two of the officers went upstairs to find the rest of the teenagers. The officers knocked at an unlocked door and a young man opened it. Mariel Ocampo was inside the room. She told the officers she was 16 years old. The officers arrested Ms. Ocampo and brought her to the juvenile justice center. Officer Bennett believed she appeared to be intoxicated because he could smell the odor of intoxicants coming from her person, and her eyes were bloodshot and watery. Ms. Ocampo admitted to Officer Bennett she had consumed a couple of beers in Walla Walla before driving to Kennewick.
At a fact-finding hearing, the juvenile court determined Ms. Ocampo was guilty of being a minor in possession/consumption of alcohol. Ms. Ocampo appealed.
ANALYSIS
The issue is whether sufficient evidence supports Ms. Ocampo's disposition. Ms. Ocampo contends the State failed to prove that she possessed, consumed, or otherwise acquired any liquor in Benton County, or exhibited the effects of having consumed liquor in a public place. The State responds that Ms. Ocampo was in a public place because Pacific Roofing is a store within what it suggests is a public place.
We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in a light most favorable to the State. State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992). When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged in a criminal case, the State's evidence is accepted as true and all reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the State. Id. Circumstantial evidence is considered to be as reliable as direct evidence. State v. Delmarter, 94 Wn.2d 634, 638, 618 P.2d 99 (1980). We will affirm if the trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d at 201.
RCW 66.44.270(2)(a) partly provides that it is unlawful for any person under the age of twenty-one years to possess, consume, or otherwise acquire any liquor. RCW 66.44.270(2)(b) partly provides that it is unlawful for a person under the age of twenty-one years to be in a public place, or to be in a motor vehicle in a public place, while exhibiting the effects of having consumed liquor. For purposes of this subsection, exhibiting the effects of having consumed liquor means that a person has the odor of liquor on his or her breath and either: (i) is in possession of or close proximity to a container that has or recently had liquor in it; or (ii) by speech, manner, appearance, behavior, lack of coordination, or otherwise, exhibits that he or she is under the influence of liquor.
Ms. Ocampo was charged in the alternative under RCW 66.44.270(2)(a) and (2)(b). Considering (2)(a), there was no evidence that Ms. Ocampo possessed, consumed, or otherwise acquired any liquor in Benton County. The officers did not find any alcohol on the premises where Ms. Ocampo was located or on her person. She told one of the officers that she had had a couple of beers in Walla Walla before driving to Kennewick. But since Walla Walla is outside the jurisdiction of the Benton County Juvenile Court, Ms. Ocampo's admission is not evidence of possession, consumption or acquisition of alcohol for the purposes of this case. Ms. Ocampo's disposition cannot be upheld under this subsection.
Turning to section (2)(b) raises a matter of statutory interpretation. We review statutory interpretation matters de novo. State v. Watson, 146 Wn.2d 947, 954, 51 P.3d 66 (2002). The primary goal in interpreting a statute is to give effect to the legislature's intent, which may be derived solely from the plain language of an unambiguous statute. Id. A statute is unambiguous if it is subject to only one reasonable interpretation; "it is not ambiguous simply because different interpretations are conceivable." Id. at 955.
Under RCW 66.44.270(2)(b), "[i]t is unlawful for a person under the age of twenty-one years to be in a public place . . . while exhibiting the effects of having consumed liquor." "`Public place' includes streets and alleys of incorporated cities and towns; state or county or township highways or roads . . . lobbies, halls and dining rooms of hotels, restaurants, theatres, stores, garages and filling stations which are open to and are generally used by the public and to which the public is permitted to have unrestricted access." RCW 66.04.010(35).
The parties focus on whether the phrase "which are open to and are generally used by the public and to which the public is permitted to have unrestricted access" applies solely to garages and filling stations or whether it refers to the whole list of places, including a store. Id. We agree that the phrase refers to the whole list. But considering the statutory list of public places is inclusive and the ordinary temporary closure of the store premises during evening hours. Pacific Roofing was generally used by the public. This is especially true because of public access to Pacific Roofing's parking area in the evening.
Moreover, Ms. Ocampo admitted to drinking alcohol in Walla Walla before driving to Kennewick, where she was ultimately found smelling of intoxicants with bloodshot and watery eyes. Since Ms. Ocampo was exhibiting those effects when arrested, it is a reasonable inference that she exhibited them in the interim. Likewise, it is a reasonable inference that before she was finally apprehended, she was in a public place because she drove from Walla Walla to Kennewick; streets and highways are public places. Inferably, Ms. Ocampo was one of the juveniles that Officer Bennett observed standing in the parking lot because she was found in the building to which they fled.
Given all, since the State's circumstantial evidence is accepted as true and all reasonable inferences are drawn from it in a light most favorable to the State, the evidence is sufficient.
Affirmed.
A majority of the panel has determined 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.
SWEENEY, J. and KORSMO, A.C.J., concur.