340 P.3d 890
Wash. Ct. App.2014Background
- Charles Farnsworth and Donald McFarland, both addicted to heroin and lacking money, planned and executed a theft from a Harborstone Credit Union branch in Tacoma; Farnsworth bought a disguise and wrote a demand note.
- McFarland (wearing a wig and sunglasses) entered the teller area, handed a note reading "No die packs, no tracking devices, put the money in the bag," received about $300, thanked the teller, and left; both were arrested shortly thereafter.
- The State charged both with first degree robbery; McFarland pleaded guilty to first degree theft and testified for the State at Farnsworth's trial.
- The jury convicted Farnsworth as an accomplice of first degree robbery; the trial court sentenced him as a persistent offender to life without parole.
- On appeal the court considered (1) whether evidence was sufficient to support an accomplice robbery conviction (threat element and accomplice knowledge), (2) evidentiary rulings (including ER 609 impeachment), (3) cumulative error, and (4) sentencing and legal financial obligation issues.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Farnsworth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for accomplice first-degree robbery (threat element) | Note and circumstances implied a threat sufficient to show robbery; accomplice liability follows because Farnsworth aided planning and wrote the note | No evidence of an explicit or implied threat; conduct supports theft but not robbery | Reversed robbery conviction: insufficient evidence of a threat to support robbery; conviction vacated and remanded for sentencing on first-degree theft |
| Sufficiency of evidence for accomplice liability (knowledge of threat/force) | Farnsworth aided planning, wrote note, and generally knew of the criminal plan; general knowledge is enough for complicity | No proof Farnsworth knew use/threat of force was intended; he only assisted a theft plan | Held there was insufficient evidence that Farnsworth agreed to or knew of use/threat of force; accomplice robbery not proved |
| Admission of McFarland's prior convictions for impeachment (ER 609) | Prior dishonesty convictions relevant to impeachment | Trial court excluded some convictions improperly (specifically misdemeanor theft) | Trial court erred in excluding McFarland's 2005 misdemeanor theft conviction (should have been admissible under ER 609(a)); other older convictions properly excluded under ER 609(b) time limit |
| Remedy / Sentencing consequences (lesser included, persistent offender, LFOs) | Jury was instructed on first-degree theft as a lesser included offense; sentencing as persistent offender valid if robbery stands | If robbery vacated, persistent-offender status and life sentence fall away; challenges to boilerplate LFO finding | Because robbery conviction vacated and jury considered theft elements, remand for sentencing on first-degree theft; persistent-offender sentencing no longer applies; LFO challenge not preserved for appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216 (Wash. 1980) (standard for sufficiency review: whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (federal standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192 (Wash. 1992) (draw reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the State)
- State v. Delmarter, 94 Wn.2d 634 (Wash. 1980) (circumstantial evidence is as reliable as direct evidence)
- State v. Handburgh, 119 Wn.2d 284 (Wash. 1992) (any threat that induces owner to part with property can support robbery)
- State v. Shcherenkov, 146 Wn. App. 619 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008) (demand notes and conduct can support an implied threat sufficient for robbery)
- State v. Collinsworth, 90 Wn. App. 546 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997) (bank teller compliance to demand notes and surrounding conduct can support robbery convictions)
- State v. Roberts, 142 Wn.2d 471 (Wash. 2000) (accomplice liability requires general knowledge that aiding will promote the specific crime charged)
- State v. Davis, 101 Wn.2d 654 (Wash. 1984) (accomplice knowledge principles)
- State v. Rice, 102 Wn.2d 120 (Wash. 1984) (accomplice principles reaffirmed)