State v. Lawson
340 P.3d 979
Wash. Ct. App.2014Background
- In May–June 2012, Geoffrey Lawson was observed on security video entering and lingering in clearly marked women’s restrooms at Harrison Medical Center and Barnes & Noble; at Harrison he fled when discovered and later resisted security, injuring an officer.
- At Barnes & Noble, A.S. saw Lawson peeking over the adjacent stall door into the restroom area; store video showed Lawson entering the women’s restroom surreptitiously.
- Charges: first-degree burglary, two counts of second-degree burglary, voyeurism, two counts of attempted voyeurism, and one count of second-degree assault; jury convicted on all counts except second-degree assault.
- Lawson appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence for voyeurism and burglary convictions, (2) voyeurism is not a “crime against a person or property” and thus cannot predicate burglary, and (3) insufficient evidence that assault occurred while in immediate flight for first-degree burglary.
- The court reviewed sufficiency of the evidence under the standard that asks whether any rational trier of fact could find the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the State.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of voyeurism evidence at Barnes & Noble | State: video and victim testimony show Lawson viewed A.S. in a place where she had a reasonable expectation of privacy | Lawson: A.S. was at the sink in the common area of the restroom, not inside a private stall, so no expectation of privacy | Affirmed — restroom (women’s room) qualifies as a place where a person reasonably expects privacy; evidence sufficient for voyeurism conviction |
| Whether voyeurism is a "crime against a person" sufficient to predicate burglary | State: voyeurism invades personal privacy and qualifies as a crime against a person | Lawson: voyeurism is not listed in SRA crime list and thus not a crime against a person for burglary purposes | Affirmed — voyeurism is a crime against the person and can serve as the predicate for second-degree burglary |
| Sufficiency of evidence for second-degree burglary (intent to commit a crime against a person) | State: Lawson entered women’s restrooms with intent to commit voyeurism | Lawson: insufficient proof of intent to commit a person-based crime inside the building | Affirmed — evidence supports that Lawson entered restrooms intending to commit voyeurism, satisfying burglary predicate element |
| First-degree burglary: assault while in building or in immediate flight | State: officer was assaulted (kicked or kneed) while escorting Lawson inside the building after being found; assault occurred while in building or immediate flight | Lawson: he was not in immediate flight; no evidence he was fleeing the scene | Affirmed — evidence showed Lawson assaulted the officer while in the building (or in immediate flight), supporting first-degree burglary conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Glas, 147 Wn.2d 410 (construing locations where a person reasonably expects safety from intrusion or surveillance for voyeurism analyses)
- State v. Snedden, 149 Wn.2d 914 (holding indecent exposure is a crime against a person and explaining why SRA crime lists are not dispositive for burglary predicate analysis)
- State v. Devitt, 152 Wn. App. 907 (contrast—holding a different offense was not a crime against person for burglary purposes; court distinguishes on facts/analysis)
- State v. Homan, 181 Wn.2d 102 (explaining sufficiency-of-evidence standard and appellate review framing)