State Of Washington v. Margaret Elizabeth Colson, 73798-8

Background

Margaret Colson lived with Vikram Chopra and Shawn Schulze, who together stole mail and used information to commit fraud, including a repeated scheme using Nordstrom account numbers to order, pick up, and return merchandise for cash.
On February 16, 2012, police stopped Colson's car after a resident observed mail theft; officers found multiple pieces of mail, a debit card and checks belonging to others, and a metal box of mixed victim cards in the vehicle.
Evidence linked Nordstrom purchases/returns to surveillance footage showing Colson participating in phone orders, pickups, or refunds; proceeds were shared among the three.
Colson was convicted of nine counts of identity theft and one count of possession of stolen mail; the jury found counts relating to the Nordstrom scheme were "major economic offenses." Sentences were within standard range; Colson appealed.
On appeal Colson challenged (1) sufficiency of evidence for date and victim identity, (2) accomplice-liability jury instruction placement, (3) whether the possession instruction required proof of each listed verb, and (4) validity/effect of the major-economic-offense aggravator.

Issues

Issue	Colson's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Sufficiency — "on or about" date for counts 1–2	Evidence showed earlier dates; jury instruction date narrows proof	"On or about" date does not require exact date; evidence placed stolen items in her car Feb 16	Affirmed: evidence sufficient to prove counts occurred "on or about" Feb 16, 2012
Sufficiency — victim existence (count 2)	Victim Rafic Farah did not appear; could be fictitious	Stolen checks and successful deposit support inference victim is real	Affirmed: evidence supports inference Farah is a real person
Accomplice-liability instructions	Inclusion of accomplice language in one count required principal proof on others	Stand‑alone accomplice instruction was given; jury presumed to follow it	Affirmed: general accomplice instruction adequate; Colson could be convicted as principal or accomplice
Possession of stolen mail — alternative means	Jury instruction lists receive/retain/possess/conceal/dispose — State had to prove each verb (e.g., dispose)	Those terms are definitional; possession is a single‑means crime; sufficiency assessed against statutory elements	Affirmed: alternative‑means doctrine not applicable; State proved statutory possession elements (≥10 pieces to ≥3 addresses)
Major economic offense aggravator	Verdict form flaw; aggravator should be stricken and may have collateral effects	Trial court did not impose exceptional sentence; absence of exceptional sentence renders issue moot; record supports aggravator if reviewed	Affirmed: issue moot (no exceptional sentence); even if reviewed, evidence sufficient to support aggravator for counts Colson knew or committed

Key Cases Cited

State v. Larson, 184 Wn.2d 843 (discussing elements and burden of proof in criminal cases)
State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192 (standard for sufficiency review — viewing evidence in light most favorable to State)
State v. Berry, 129 Wn. App. 59 (identity‑theft victim must be a real person)
State v. Teal, 117 Wn. App. 831 (accomplice liability may be given as a separate instruction)
Musacchio v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 709 (sufficiency review assesses elements of charged crime, not erroneously added elements in instructions)
State v. Hickman, 135 Wn.2d 97 (addressed law‑of‑the‑case concerns regarding jury instructions; discussed but limited by Musacchio)