State Of Washington, V Raymond Ersie Jensen, 48652-1

Jensen told his girlfriend Ostenson he owned a six-horse trailer and wanted to sell it for $5,000 due to business money problems.
Ostenson told her friend Tawni Hickle, who agreed to buy the trailer; on March 20, 2015 Hickle gave Jensen $5,000 in cash after he sent photos and said the trailer was stored in Spokane.
Jensen failed to deliver the trailer and gave repeated excuses by text (broken truck, family emergencies, etc.). He promised to deliver the title later and to repay the money but did not.
Ostenson and law enforcement discovered via a Google image search that the photos Jensen sent matched an Ohio advertisement for a trailer, not one he owned.
The State charged Jensen with second-degree theft by color or aid of deception; following a bench trial the court found the photos identical, rejected Jensen’s credibility, and convicted him.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether findings of fact 5 and 6 are supported by substantial evidence	Findings are supported: texts, witness testimony, and photo comparison show deception and excuses	Findings unsupported (general challenge); characterization that this was mere breach of contract	Court: substantial evidence supports findings 5 and 6 (texts and identical photos)
Whether conviction may be based on obtaining property "by color or aid of deception"	State: photos, false statements, and failure to correct false impressions show deception inducing the transfer	Jensen: at most a contractual breach; no deception, no intent to deprive, no property of another	Court: deception proven — photos were of an Ohio listing, credibility rejected, deception operated to obtain money
Whether the $5,000 was "property of another"	State: money was paid for a specific purpose (purchase of trailer), so Hickle retained an ownership interest	Jensen: payment under contract means no property-of-another for theft	Court: under Pike/Joy, funds restricted to purchase give owner interest — thus property of another
Whether there was intent to permanently deprive	State: intent may be inferred from conduct, lies, and failure to return funds	Jensen: claimed intent to repay and contends only breach of contract	Court: court rejected Jensen’s credibility; intent to deprive can be inferred and was proven beyond a reasonable doubt

State v. Mines, 163 Wn.2d 387 (evidence viewed most favorably to State in sufficiency review)
State v. Homan, 181 Wn.2d 102 (bench-trial review: substantial evidence must support findings and findings must support conclusions of law)
Robel v. Roundup Corp., 148 Wn.2d 35 (unchallenged findings of fact are verities on appeal)
State v. Pike, 118 Wn.2d 585 (definition of "property of another" and owner interest)
State v. Joy, 121 Wn.2d 333 (funds entrusted for specific purpose create owner interest in that application)
State v. Vasquez, 178 Wn.2d 1 (intent may be inferred from conduct and circumstances)
State v. Komok, 113 Wn.2d 810 (definition of "deprive")
State v. Mehrabian, 175 Wn. App. 678 (broad definition of "deception")
State v. Arredondo, 190 Wn. App. 512 (appellate court will not reweigh evidence; reasonable inferences control)
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (prosecution must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt)