State v. Owens
323 P.3d 1030
Wash.2014Background
- July 2010: a 1967 VW Beetle was stolen from Motor City dealership after a test drive by Jeramie Owens; a dealer key was missing.
- Owens later registered and sold a different-year Beetle; purchaser found mismatched VIN plate and reported suspected theft.
- Police discovered a confidential VIN matching the stolen 1967 Beetle; returned car lacked roof rack/surfboard, had different engine and paint.
- Owens was identified by buyer, had a VW tattoo, and was arrested after police located a similar yellow Beetle at his residence; search recovered the stolen surfboard and rivet gun.
- Owens was convicted of first-degree trafficking in stolen property (among other counts); Court of Appeals reversed the trafficking conviction holding the statute listed eight alternative means and at least one lacked sufficient evidence.
- The Washington Supreme Court granted review, held the statute describes two alternative means, found sufficient evidence for each, and reinstated the trafficking conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RCW 9A.82.050(1) sets out alternative means and how many | State: statute describes only two alternative means (facilitating theft and trafficking) | Owens: Court of Appeals view — statute lists eight alternative means requiring unanimity | Court: statute describes two alternative means (the seven verbs form one grouped means; the separate trafficking clause is the second) |
| Whether jury unanimity was required as to means and whether absence of particularized unanimity invalidates conviction | State: unanimity unnecessary if sufficient evidence supports each alternative; instructions here effectively required both elements | Owens: conviction invalid because jury not unanimous as to multiple means and insufficient evidence for at least one | Court: because only two means exist and sufficient evidence supported each, no unanimity error; conviction stands |
| Whether sufficiency of evidence supports the "facilitating/participating" (first) alternative | State: circumstantial evidence (possession, registration, alterations, inability to explain acquisition, recovered surfboard/rivet gun) supports participation/facilitation | Owens: acquittal on taking the vehicle shows no proof he or another person initiated/organized the theft; the seven verbs require another participant | Court: statute allows single-person planning/initiating; facts suffice to show he initiated/participated in theft for sale — sufficient evidence supports the first alternative |
| Whether federal unanimity standard should apply in Washington | State urged adoption of federal rule that unanimity as to means is not required | Owens: relied on Washington constitutional unanimity protection | Court: rejected federal approach; Washington’s unanimity doctrine remains governed by state constitution and precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ortega-Martinez, 124 Wn.2d 702 (1994) (jury unanimity rule for alternative means crimes and when particularized unanimity is required)
- State v. Peterson, 168 Wn.2d 763 (2010) (use of disjunctive terms does not necessarily create multiple alternative means; similar acts may form a single means)
- State v. Smith, 159 Wn.2d 778 (2007) (alternative means doctrine does not apply to mere definitional instructions)
- State v. Lindsey, 177 Wn. App. 233 (2013) (interpreting RCW 9A.82.050(1) as describing two alternative means; grouping the seven verbs as facets of a single means)
- Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46 (1991) (federal rule refusing to set aside general verdict when one possible basis is unsupported — cited but declined as incompatible with Washington law)
- State v. Strohm, 75 Wn. App. 301 (1994) (Court of Appeals discussion referenced historically as having stated eight means, but Supreme Court found that characterization inapposite)