State Of Washington v. Pavel F. Zalozh, 48612-1

Background

On June 2, 2012, a Mowery residence was burglarized; two gun safes and other items (including a black backpack) were taken; neighborhood witnesses and video showed two men near the house; neighbors identified appellant Pavel Zalozh near the area carrying backpacks.
Additional burglaries occurred June 9–10 at the Powells and the Lucacis; jewelry, coins, electronics, and other items were taken and later reported stolen.
On June 11 deputies found Zalozh in his girlfriend’s car with two black backpacks, a blue plastic bag, and jewelry hidden under a floor mat; some items matched those reported stolen from the Mowerys, Powells, and Lucacis.
Zalozh waived Miranda rights, denied knowledge of the burglaries, but admitted he sold stolen property for others and denied possessing the firearms.
The State charged Zalozh with residential burglary (Mowery), two counts of theft of a firearm, two counts of possession of stolen property in the second degree (Powells, Lucacis), bail jumping, and first-degree theft; a jury convicted on all counts.
On appeal Zalozh challenged sufficiency of the evidence for multiple convictions and argued the trial court erred by failing to analyze other-bad-act evidence under ER 404(b).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency — residential burglary	Evidence shows Zalozh was near scene, was identified by witnesses, appeared on video, and possessed recently stolen property — supports burglary conviction	Evidence insufficient to connect Zalozh to entry or theft beyond possession of items	Affirmed: reasonable inference of principal or accomplice liability from presence + possession of recently stolen goods and other corroboration
Sufficiency — theft of firearms	Firearms were taken during the burglary; because burglary proved, jury could infer Zalozh stole or aided in stealing firearms	Insufficient direct proof he took the firearms	Affirmed: conviction supported as theft occurred during burglary and accomplice/principal liability applies
Sufficiency — possession of stolen property (value element)	Victim testimony about items and purchase prices (plus jewelry descriptions) permitted reasonable inference market value exceeded $750 in the area	Value not proved in the geographic area or at time of theft	Affirmed: owner testimony and reasonable inferences satisfied market-value element for second-degree possession
Admission of other-bad-act evidence / ER 404(b)	Trial court allegedly failed to analyze/state ER 404(b) when State introduced evidence of other burglaries	Objection at trial was only relevance-based, not ER 404(b); thus issue not preserved	Affirmed: issue not considered on appeal because defendant failed to raise ER 404(b) objection below; preserved-error rule applies

Key Cases Cited

State v. Engel, 166 Wn.2d 572 (standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Kintz, 169 Wn.2d 537 (circumstantial evidence equals direct evidence)
State v. Drum, 168 Wn.2d 23 (defendant admits State evidence for insufficiency review)
State v. Homan, 181 Wn.2d 102 (deference to jury on credibility/inferences)
State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192 (interpretation of inferences against defendant)
State v. Teal, 152 Wn.2d 333 (no jury unanimity required on principal vs. accomplice theory)
State v. Berube, 150 Wn.2d 498 (accomplice need not know exact crime elements)
State v. Roberts, 142 Wn.2d 471 (accomplice liability principles)
State v. Ehrhardt, 167 Wn. App. 934 (possession of recently stolen property + corroboration supports burglary)
State v. Longshore, 141 Wn.2d 414 (definition of market value)
State v. Kleist, 126 Wn.2d 432 (market-value definition authority)
State v. Melrose, 2 Wn. App. 824 (owner testimony on value and reasonable inferences)
State v. Hammond, 6 Wn. App. 459 (owner opinion as evidence of value)
State v. Mason, 160 Wn.2d 910 (preservation requirement for 404(b) arguments)
State v. O'Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91 (purpose of preservation rule to allow trial court correction)