State Of Washington v. Janet Lee Bauml, 74436-4

Janet Bauml befriended 77-year-old Mariana Cooper and obtained power of attorney and access to Cooper’s accounts; Cooper loaned Bauml about $217,888 between 2008–2011 (state charged $180,200).
Bauml repeatedly asked for money, claiming it was needed for rent/utilities, her son’s drug treatment/legal expenses, and her own medical care; Cooper trusted her and did not document terms.
Financial analysis showed most transferred funds were spent on retail, lodging, personal expenses, and credit-card payments—not the represented purposes; Bauml made limited documented payments toward claimed treatments.
Bauml repeatedly promised repayment and made representations (e.g., imminent Nu Skin windfall) that were unsupported by records; she avoided repayment requests and did not return the funds.
A jury convicted Bauml of five counts of first-degree theft and four counts of second-degree theft (major economic offense aggravator found); sentenced to 43 months and $175,200 restitution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Bauml)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Sufficiency: deception element ("by color or aid of deception")	Bauml: did not misrepresent reasons for funds; Cooper would have given money anyway	State: Bauml knowingly created/confirmed false impressions and Cooper relied on them; deception contributed to obtaining funds	Held: Evidence sufficient that Bauml deceived Cooper about reasons and Cooper relied on those deceptions
Sufficiency: intent to permanently deprive	Bauml: intended to repay (promises)	State: lack of resources, deceptive promises, evasive conduct show intent to permanently deprive	Held: Evidence sufficient to infer intent to permanently deprive
Jury instruction on "by color or aid of deception"	Bauml: requested Mehrabian-based instruction emphasizing reliance; current WPIC insufficient to let her present defense	State: WPIC 79.03 mirrors statute and permits defense argument; trial court discretion in wording	Held: Court did not err; WPIC 79.03 accurately stated law and allowed Bauml to argue her theory
First-time offender waiver at sentencing	Bauml: trial court categorically refused waiver and abused discretion	State: court considered facts and denied waiver based on case-specific aggravating facts	Held: No abuse of discretion; denial based on specific facts, not categorical rule

State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192 (standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Alvarez, 128 Wn.2d 1 (elemental sufficiency requirement)
State v. Mehrabian, 175 Wn. App. 678 (discussion of deception/reliance language Bauml sought)
State v. Kennard, 101 Wn. App. 533 (review of instruction error standard)
State v. Hoffman, 116 Wn.2d 51 (prejudice requirement for instructional error)
State v. Coristine, 177 Wn.2d 370 (Sixth Amendment right to fair trial via instructions)
State v. Redmond, 150 Wn.2d 489 (defendant’s ability to argue theory of the case)
State v. Grayson, 154 Wn.2d 333 (trial court abuse if it refuses categorically to impose an exceptional sentence)
State v. Garcia-Martinez, 88 Wn. App. 322 (sentence discretion context)
State v. Johnson, 97 Wn. App. 679 (discretion on first-time offender option)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance test)
Michel v. State of Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91 (deference to trial strategy under Strickland)