State of Washington v. Ruben Dario Rojas, Jr., 34516-5

On Jan. 14, 2016 a confidential informant purchased four morphine pills at Zackary Morrell’s house; informant identified Ruben Rojas in a police lineup as the seller.
Rojas was charged with delivery of a controlled substance and a statutory sentencing enhancement alleging the sale occurred within 1,000 feet of a school bus route stop.
The State introduced a map prepared June 2, 2016 by the school district transportation director showing a bus stop within a 1,000-foot circle centered on Morrell’s house; the director testified the routing software and county GIS were spatially accurate but did not measure by tape.
The jury convicted Rojas and returned the special verdict finding the sale occurred within 1,000 feet of a school bus stop; the court imposed a sentence including a 24-month enhancement based on that finding.
On appeal Rojas argued (1) insufficient evidence supported the enhancement because the State did not prove the bus stop existed on the date of the offense, and (2) confrontation issues arising from admission of the map without a qualified witness. The court reversed the enhancement and remanded for resentencing, affirming the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Rojas)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for school bus stop enhancement	Map and transportation director testimony showed a bus stop within 1,000 feet of the sale address, so enhancement proven	No evidence showed the bus stop existed on the date of the offense; map was dated after the offense	Reversed enhancement: State failed to prove existence of bus stop on offense date beyond a reasonable doubt
Confrontation Clause re: map testimony	(Alternate) Admission of map and director testimony was adequate	Admission without a qualified witness measuring distances violated Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses	Not decided (court reversed on sufficiency grounds and did not reach this issue)

State v. Hennessey, 80 Wn. App. 190 (1995) (State must prove sentencing enhancement beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Stubbs, 170 Wn.2d 117 (2010) (review of evidence supporting special finding uses same standard as criminal conviction)
State v. Condon, 182 Wn.2d 307 (2015) (sufficiency review assumes truth of State's evidence and reasonable inferences)
State v. Hickman, 135 Wn.2d 97 (1998) (remand for resentencing after reversal of sentencing enhancement)
State v. Camarillo, 115 Wn.2d 60 (1990) (credibility determinations rest with the jury)
State v. McCreven, 170 Wn. App. 444 (2012) (appellate court will not reweigh evidence or supplant jury credibility findings)