State Of Washington, Res/cross-app. v. Michael Loren Byrd, App/cross-res., 75012-7

Michael Byrd brought a stolen MacBook Pro and a stolen speaker to G&H Pawn in Everett to sell; the laptop displayed text messages indicating it was stolen and the owner (Gerrodette) identified it there.
Pawnshop owner viewed Byrd's driver’s license, offered $200 for both items, and Byrd signed a purchase agreement stating he owned and sold the items for $200.
Byrd appeared anxious and tried to rush the transaction; the owner delayed payment and called police.
Officers arrived; Byrd told police his nephew (Johnny Williams) had asked him to pawn the laptop and that he knew of his nephew’s reputation as a thief.
The State charged Byrd with second-degree trafficking in stolen property (RCW 9A.82.055); a jury convicted and Byrd appealed, arguing insufficient evidence and that the trial judge impermissibly commented on the evidence during closing arguments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for trafficking in stolen property	State: evidence shows Byrd sold/attempted to sell stolen property to pawnshop; signing agreement and negotiating sale satisfy trafficking	Byrd: no completed transaction because he never received payment, so crime incomplete	Affirmed — viewing evidence in State's favor, rational juror could find trafficking: sale agreement and transfer sufficient; owner’s nonpayment immaterial
Judicial comment on evidence during closing argument	State: trial court properly sustained objection to defense argument not supported by testimony	Byrd: court’s exchange with counsel impermissibly conveyed judge’s view and commented on evidence	Affirmed — sustaining objection and brief clarification did not convey the judge’s opinion on evidence or credibility; defense was able to present theory
Appellate costs	State: ordinarily awarded to prevailing party	Byrd: indigent, request to deny costs	Trial court found Byrd indigent; costs generally denied unless State shows significant financial change

State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Benson, 144 Wash. 170, 257 P. 236 (1927) (discussing when a crime is incomplete for lack of required agreement)
State v. Levy, 156 Wn.2d 709, 132 P.3d 1076 (2006) (Article IV, §16 prohibition on judicial comments on evidence)
State v. Elmore, 139 Wn.2d 250, 985 P.2d 289 (1999) (assessing whether a judge’s statements imply opinion on the evidence)
State v. Frazier, 55 Wn. App. 204, 777 P.2d 27 (1989) (example of impermissible comment analysis)