State Of Washington v. Jean M. Manussier, 48840-0

On December 30, 2014 Pierce County deputies stopped Jean Marie Manussier for expired tabs and observed a large amount of unopened mail in her car consisting largely of financial documents addressed to 25 people other than Manussier or her passenger.
The mail included credit card offers/bills, utility bills, bank statements, IRS payments, and a $23,500 check. Deputies saw envelopes addressed to named third parties (e.g., Tara Stover, Raymond D. Eaton).
Manussier initially told deputies the mail was hers and that she put it in the car, then later denied ownership and said she did not know how it got there. She asked to put the mail back in a mailbox but deputies impounded the car and later executed a search warrant.
Manussier was charged with one count of first-degree identity theft, ten counts of second-degree identity theft, possession of stolen mail, and bail jumping; she was convicted on all counts at jury trial.
On appeal she challenged only the sufficiency of the evidence for the identity theft convictions (intent element). She also requested that appellate costs not be imposed if the State prevailed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there sufficient evidence to prove the intent element of identity theft?	The State: possession of sorted financial mail for 25 people, false explanations, and surrounding circumstances support an inference of intent to commit a crime.	Manussier: mere possession of others’ identification/financial information without proof of intent is insufficient.	Yes. Evidence (large quantity of only financial documents, sorting implication, and shifting/false explanations) permitted a rational juror to infer intent beyond a reasonable doubt.
Should appellate costs be denied if the State prevails?	The State may seek costs per RAP 14.2.	Manussier asked the court to decline appellate costs.	Deferred to a commissioner under RAP 14.2 if the State files a cost bill and Manussier objects.

State v. Houston-Sconiers, 188 Wn.2d 1 (2017) (standard for sufficiency review and drawing inferences for the State)
State v. Vasquez, 178 Wn.2d 1 (2013) (possession alone insufficient to prove intent; slight corroboration may suffice)
State v. Esquivel, 71 Wn. App. 868 (1993) (false or improbable explanations can be slight corroboration of intent)
State v. Woods, 63 Wn. App. 588 (1991) (intent may be inferred from conduct and surrounding circumstances)
State v. Sells, 166 Wn. App. 918 (2012) (elements of Washington identity theft statute; no need to prove actual use)
State v. Fedorov, 181 Wn. App. 187 (2014) (State need not prove the specific crime a defendant intended to commit)