State Of Washington v. Buddy L. Boyer, 48763-2

On July 5, 2015, Hanson saw Boyer seated in an alley next to Valley Cleaners, handling something in his hand and making a motion Hanson could not identify; ~2 minutes later a fire was reported at that exact spot.
Officer Capps located Boyer about two blocks away; Hanson identified him as the person he had seen in the alley.
Officer Capps testified Boyer told him he "didn’t mean to start the fire and that it just got out of control." The State charged Boyer with second degree reckless burning.
At trial Boyer asserted his admission was false and blamed a friend (Ryan Erickson) for starting the fire; the juvenile court nevertheless adjudicated Boyer guilty and entered finding of fact 5 that Boyer "had something in his hand and was doing something beside him, but Mr. Hanson could not see what."
At disposition the juvenile court imposed consecutive 52-week terms (total 104 weeks) as a manifest injustice alternative; Boyer appealed both the adjudication and the disposition; the court of appeals bifurcated the issues and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Boyer)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether finding of fact 5 is supported by substantial evidence	Hanson never saw a lighter or identifiable object; thus finding 5 is unsupported	Hanson’s testimony that Boyer was "doing something like this" and couldn’t identify it supports that Boyer held something the witness could not identify	Finding 5 is supported by substantial evidence; affirmed
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to move to dismiss under corpus delicti rule	Counsel should have moved to exclude Boyer’s confession because there was no independent evidence of corpus delicti for reckless burning	Independent eyewitness and investigative evidence supplied prima facie proof of corpus delicti; any motion to dismiss likely would have failed	No ineffective assistance: Boyer failed to show prejudice from any alleged omission
What constitutes corpus delicti for 2nd-degree reckless burning	N/A (legal issue framed by court)	N/A	Corpus delicti requires (1) occurrence of a fire/explosion placing property in danger and (2) independent evidence that the fire was caused by the actions of someone criminally responsible
Whether appellate costs should be imposed	Appellant requested no costs or court to decline costs	State disclaimed seeking appellate costs	Court declined to impose appellate costs

State v. Aten, 130 Wn.2d 640 (discussing corpus delicti rule; confession insufficient alone)
City of Bremerton v. Corbett, 106 Wn.2d 569 (corpus delicti generally: injury/loss and criminal agency as cause)
State v. Picard, 90 Wn. App. 890 (arson corpus delicti: building burned and burned by willful criminal act of someone)
State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322 (standard for prejudice in ineffective assistance claims)
State v. Hummel, 165 Wn. App. 749 (independent evidence sufficient to prima facie establish corpus delicti)