State v. Larson, 184 Wash. 2d 843

Background

Zachary Larson was convicted of retail theft with “extenuating” circumstances under former RCW 9A.56.360(1)(b) after using ordinary wire cutters to remove a security tag from $32 shoes at Marshalls.
The statute aggravated retail theft when the defendant possessed an “item, article, implement, or device designed to overcome security systems,” giving lined bags and tag removers as examples.
Division One of the Court of Appeals affirmed Larson’s conviction, reasoning any item that can be used to defeat security (e.g., wire cutters) falls within the statute; Division Two had reached the opposite conclusion in Reeves regarding ordinary pliers.
The Washington Supreme Court granted review to resolve the conflict about the meaning of “designed to overcome security systems.”
The Court held the phrase is limited to items created or modified with the specialized purpose of defeating security systems (e.g., booster/‘lined’ bags or tag removers), and ordinary, unmodified tools like wire cutters or pliers do not qualify.
Because wire cutters are ordinary tools and not designed specifically to defeat security systems, the Court reversed Larson’s enhanced retail-theft conviction for insufficiency of the evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ordinary wire cutters are an item “designed to overcome security systems” under RCW 9A.56.360(1)(b)	State: “Designed” should be read broadly to include items that can be used to defeat security (wire cutters qualify).	Larson: “Designed” requires creation or modification with the specific purpose of defeating security systems; ordinary wire cutters do not qualify.	Court: “Designed” means created or modified with the specialized purpose of overcoming security systems; ordinary unmodified tools do not qualify.
Whether the statute’s illustrative examples limit its scope	State: Examples are nonexclusive; statute should cover any item used to overcome security.	Larson: Examples (lined bags, tag removers) show the statute targets specialized countermeasures, not general-purpose tools.	Court: Ejusdem generis applies; examples limit the general language to similar specialized devices.
Whether “designed” imports an intent/use element	State: “Designed” may encompass items that a defendant intends to use to evade security.	Larson: Statute criminalizes possession of items designed for the purpose; it does not criminalize mere potential use or intent without design.	Court: “Designed” focuses on the item’s creation or modification for the specialized purpose; it does not impose an intent-to-use element.
Sufficiency of evidence for enhanced retail-theft conviction	State: Evidence that Larson had wire cutters used to remove a tag supports the enhanced charge.	Larson: Wire cutters are ordinary tools and thus not covered by the enhancement.	Court: Evidence insufficient—wire cutters are ordinary tools and do not satisfy the statute’s element.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Sweany, 174 Wn.2d 909 (2012) (statutory interpretation objective is to determine legislative intent)
State v. Ervin, 169 Wn.2d 815 (2010) (plain language is the surest indication of legislative intent)
State v. Hirschfelder, 170 Wn.2d 536 (2010) (apply plain meaning where statute is unambiguous)
Simpson Inv. Co. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 141 Wn.2d 139 (2000) (general terms with specific terms should be limited to similar things)
State v. Gonzales Flores, 164 Wn.2d 1 (2008) (specific words modify and restrict general words)
State v. J.P., 149 Wn.2d 444 (2003) (all statutory language must be given effect)
State v. Wilson, 125 Wn.2d 212 (1994) (plain language obviates need for construction)
State v. Byrd, 125 Wn.2d 707 (1995) (State must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192 (1991) (sufficiency review—evidence viewed in light most favorable to the State)
State v. Engel, 166 Wn.2d 572 (2009) (conviction upheld if any rational trier of fact could find elements beyond reasonable doubt)