State v. Johnson
93453-3
| Wash. | Jul 13, 2017Background
- Kendra Farmer left her Coach purse unattended in a Pottery Barn; John Henry Johnson picked it up, tried to conceal it in a plastic bag, and walked away until confronted and stopped.
- Johnson was charged with second-degree theft of an access device (credit card) under RCW 9A.56.040(1)(d).
- The trial court's to-convict instruction—unchallenged by the State—expressly included an element that Johnson intended to deprive the victim of the access device.
- The jury convicted; Johnson appealed on sufficiency-of-the-evidence grounds, arguing the State failed to prove specific intent to steal an access device.
- The Court of Appeals relied on Musacchio v. United States to hold the erroneous added element in the instruction does not control sufficiency review; the Washington Supreme Court granted review.
- The Washington Supreme Court addressed whether Musacchio supersedes Washington’s "law of the case" rule (Hickman) and whether evidence was sufficient to prove specific intent to steal an access device.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Johnson) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether specific intent to steal an access device is a statutory element of second-degree theft of an access device | Statute requires intent to deprive the victim of the access device specifically | Statute requires intent to deprive of property generally and separately that the property be an access device | Held: Not a statutory element; intent to deprive property generally plus that the property was an access device suffices under the statute |
| Whether an unchallenged to-convict instruction that adds an element binds the State at appeal (Washington’s "law of the case") | The to-convict instruction added an element (intent to steal an access device), so State must prove it | The State agreed the instruction added the element but relied on Musacchio to avoid the obligation | Held: Under Hickman, Washington law treats unchallenged to-convict instructions as law of the case; the State must prove the added element |
| Whether Musacchio v. United States supersedes Washington’s Hickman rule | Musacchio controls sufficiency review and forecloses treating added jury-instruction elements as binding | Musacchio is a federal rule about federal-law sufficiency review; Washington’s separate common-law/procedural "law of the case" remains | Held: Musacchio does not supersede Washington’s independent law-of-the-case doctrine; Hickman remains good law |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to show Johnson specifically intended to steal an access device | No direct evidence he knew cards were inside; insufficient to infer specific intent to steal an access device | Conduct (grabbing purse, folding it, trying to conceal, walking away) permitted a reasonable inference he intended to steal purse and its contents, including cards | Held: Evidence sufficient for a rational jury to infer specific intent to steal an access device; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Musacchio v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 709 (2016) (U.S. Supreme Court holding additional elements in jury instructions do not control federal sufficiency review)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review under due process)
- State v. Hickman, 135 Wn.2d 97 (1998) (Washington law-of-the-case rule: unchallenged to-convict instructions can create binding elements)
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) (due process requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every element)
- State v. Holmes, 98 Wn.2d 590 (1983) (theft does not require knowledge of value or intent to obtain a particular dollar amount)
- State v. Delmarter, 94 Wn.2d 634 (1980) (elements of attempted theft do not include knowledge of value)
- State v. France, 180 Wn.2d 809 (2014) (erroneous to-convict instructions can create new elements of the crime)