State v. Moran, 324 P.3d 808

Kevin Moran (half owner but not in sole possession) cut and filled a sewer pipe under Karen Moran’s house with expanding foam, causing backup into the toilet and bathtub.
The entry to the pipe required removing deck lattice, crawling under the deck, and entering through an access door set in the house foundation into a lighted, stand-up space under the living area; the space was not accessible from inside the house.
Karen had sole possession per the divorce decree; Kevin lacked permission to enter the premises the day of the incident.
Kevin’s ex-girlfriend Lynda Kozak found a Home Depot receipt for foam and spray paint; video showed Kevin purchasing those items; Kozak later told police and implicated Kevin; Kevin admitted to Kozak he damaged the pipe.
Kevin was charged with residential burglary (RCW 9A.52.025). The jury convicted him of residential burglary; he moved for a new trial based on a post-trial statement by his son Shawn that Kozak offered to pay Shawn to compromise the pipe; the trial court denied the motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether entry beneath the house into the access area is entry into a "dwelling" for residential burglary	State: the enclosed, lighted area accessed through a foundation door is a portion of the dwelling used for lodging; Kevin’s entry was unlawful because he lacked permission	Kevin: area is not part of the dwelling because no one lived there and it was inaccessible from inside the residence	Court: Entry into the enclosed foundation area was entry into a portion of the dwelling; conviction of residential burglary supported by sufficient evidence
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying new trial based on Shawn’s post-trial statement	Kevin: Shawn’s statement (Kozak offered to pay him) together with Kozak’s admission and Kevin’s testimony creates alternative theory that likely would change the verdict	State: Shawn’s statement is impeachment or cumulative and would not probably change the result	Court: Denial not an abuse of discretion; new evidence was largely impeaching and would not probably change outcome

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (constitutional sufficiency of the evidence standard)
State v. Rattana Keo Phuong, 174 Wn. App. 494 (review standard for sufficiency in Washington)
State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192 (accept truth of State’s evidence on sufficiency review)
State v. Neal, 161 Wn. App. 111 (an accessory room/space can be a portion of a dwelling)
Burgett v. State, 314 N.E.2d 799 (Ind. App. 1974) (area under same roof and functionally interconnected can be part of dwelling even without interior access)
State v. Williams, 96 Wn.2d 215 (standards for granting a new trial; factors for newly discovered evidence)
State v. Burke, 163 Wn.2d 204 (appellate review standard for denial of new trial)