City Of Tumwater v. Alan L. Lichti
76746-1
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jul 31, 2017Background
- Lichti bought a new Acer laptop at Walmart for $432.63, drove home in his Ford Focus, and left the unopened box and his car keys in an unlocked bedroom shared with roommates.
- About two hours later someone presented the Acer box and receipt at Walmart and received a cash refund; the box actually contained an old broken HP laptop. The refund was given and the returner left in a vehicle identified as Lichti’s Ford Focus.
- Walmart asset-protection obtained surveillance, linked the purchase to Lichti, and contacted police; an officer testified Lichti called back and admitted switching laptops and having a friend return the older unit.
- Lichti testified a roommate (identified as the man in the yellow shirt) had borrowed his car, denied making the admission call, said he still had the Acer, and claimed he didn’t report it stolen because he expected a roommate to return it.
- A jury convicted Lichti of third degree theft; on appeal Lichti argued the trial court gave an erroneous theft instruction omitting required custodial-relationship language (the embezzlement/unauthorized-control language).
- The superior court (RALJ) affirmed the conviction, concluding the instructional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; the Court of Appeals affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the theft jury instruction was erroneous and if so whether the error was prejudicial | City: instruction error conceded by State but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | Lichti: omission of custodial-relationship language prejudiced him and may have contributed to the verdict | Error existed (omission) but was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because evidence supports alternative statutory theory (wrongfully took property) |
| Whether sufficient evidence supported conviction under the "wrongfully obtains" alternative (RCW 9A.56.010(22)(a)) | City: circumstantial and direct evidence permits reasonable inference Lichti wrongfully took the laptop | Lichti: testified alternative theory (roommate took it); challenged sufficiency and impact of erroneous instruction | Sufficient evidence (purchase, possession evidence, surveillance, refund leaving in Lichti’s car, alleged admission) to support conviction under (22)(a) |
| Whether the uncontroverted-evidence harmless-error test applies | City: Linehan controls; apply constitutional harmless-error analysis, not uncontroverted-evidence test | Lichti: urged uncontroverted-evidence test to show prejudice | Court: uncontroverted-evidence test inapplicable; Linehan precedent governs and supports harmlessness based on sufficient evidence |
| Whether jury might have relied on erroneous unauthorized-control instruction to convict | Lichti: jury could have acquitted on wrongfully-obtained but convicted on erroneous unauthorized-control instruction | City: circumstantial evidence supports conviction under proper theory regardless | Court: speculative claim unpersuasive; conviction would have been sustained on valid alternative theory |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Linehan, 147 Wn.2d 638 (2002) (supreme court holds omission of custodial-relationship language in theft instruction is error but may be harmless if evidence supports other statutory definitions)
- State v. Thomas, 150 Wn.2d 821 (2004) (constitutional harmless-error analysis for instructional omissions that omit elements)
- State v. Coristine, 177 Wn.2d 370 (2013) (discusses elements and harmless-error standards)
- State v. Armstrong, 188 Wn.2d 333 (2017) (defining sufficiency review standard for circumstantial evidence)