Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two December 15, 2015

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II STATE OF WASHINGTON,Respondent,

V. FRANK JUNIOR RUCKER, No. 46703 - 8 -II UNPUBLISHED OPINION

WORGEN, A.C.J. — FrankJunior Rucker appeals his conviction for felony violation of a domestic violence no contact order. He argues that the State presented insufficient evidence that 

### he knowingly made contactwith the protected party. We disagree and affirm Rucker's
conviction. FACTS On May 29, 2014, Rucker was driving his van in Aberdeen with two passengers in the rear compartment, one of whom was Kelly Eidsmoe. At the time, a valid domestic violence no
contact order prohibited Rucker from having contact with Eidsmoe. The rear compartment ofNo. 46703 -8 -II



### the van was partitioned from the front compartment by athin bed sheetthat partially obstructed the view. The van' s rear and middle doors did not open, so the rear compartment was accessible 

### only bythe van' s front doors. 

### A police officer attempted to stop Rucker's van after running the license plate and learning that an arrest warrant existed forthe registered owner. The officer activated her squad car' s emergency lights, but Rucker did not yield. The officer then activated her car' s siren, but 

### Rucker still did not yield. Eventually, however, Rucker stopped when he reached a dead end, and the officer approached. When asked, Rucker told the officer that there,were two people in the van. Rucker told the officer that his name was Michael Junior Park. He also said that he . was born on August 16, 1954— nearly 60 years earlier, at that time—but that he was 47 years old. When the officer
asked him if he owned the van, he said, " No. Frank is the owner." Report ofProceedings at 49. However, when the officer searched the van, she found Rucker' s wallet, inside ofwhich was 

### identification showing his correct name and birth date. A male passenger emerged from the back ofthe van,.but Eidsmoe remained inside. 

### Officers discovered Eidsmoe and questioned her. She told them her name, and they subsequently discovered the valid no contact order prohibiting Rucker from being within 500 feet ofher. The officers then informed Rucker he was under arrest for violation ofthe order, to which he expressed no surprise.

0)No. 46703 -8 -II



### The State charged Ruckerwith felonyviolation ofa no contact order and making afalse or misleading statement to a police officer. At trial, both officers present at.the scene of 

### Rucker' s stop and arresttestified,as did Rucker himself. Thejuryfound Rucker guilty of violating the no contact order but did not reach averdict on the false statement charge. 

### Rucker now appeals his resulting conviction for felonyviolation ofa domestic violence

no contact order ANALYSIS 

### Rucker argues that the State failed to produce sufficient evidence to support afinding beyond a reasonable doubtthat Rucker knowingly violated the no contact order. We disagree. 

### Evidence is sufficientto support acriminal conviction if,viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier offact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Homan, 181 Wn.2d 102, 105, 330 P.3d 182 ( 2014). In evaluating a sufficiency ofthe evidence claim, we assume the truth ofthe State' s evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence. Id.at 106. We defer to the trier offact' s resolution ofconflicting testimony and evaluation ofthe persuasiveness ofthe evidence. Id. In evaluating the sufficiency ofthe evidence, we consider circumstantial evidence as reliable as 

### direct evidence. State v. Smith, 185 Wn.App. 945, 957, 344 P.3d 1244, revie- w, denied, 183 Wn.2d 1011 ( 2015). To convict a defendant charged with violation ofa no contact order, the State must prove 

### beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) the defendant willfully contacted (2) a person protected by a
valid no contact order, (3) with knowledge ofthe no contact order. RCW 10.99.050; State v.. Sisemore, 114 Wn.App. 75, 78, 55 P.3d 1178 ( 2002). " A defendant acts willfully ifhe acts knowingly with respect to the material elements, 

### including the contact element." Sisemore, 114

91No. 46703 - 8 -II 

### Wn.App. at 78. This is consistent with the "to convict" jury instruction given bythe trial court for felony violation ofa court order, requiring that the defendant knew ofthe order and knowingly violated a portion of A person acts knowingly if " he orshe is aware ofa fact, facts, or circumstances or result described by a statute defining an offense." RCW 9A.08. 010( 1)( b)( i). However, a person does not knowingly violate a contact prohibition in a 

### situation in which the defendant "accidentally or inadvertently contacted [the protected parry] but immediately broke it off." 

### Sisemore, 114 Wn.App. at 78. 

### Assuming the truth ofthe State' s evidence and viewing it in the light most favorable to 

### the State,the evidence supports a finding beyond a reasonable doubtthat Rucker knowingly violated the no contact order. Testimony established that Rucker initially failed to stop when the 

### police attempted to pull him over, and then he attempted to conceal his identitywhen stopped by police. Similarly, Eidsmoe remained in the van during the stop, even though the other passenger exited. Thejury reasonably could have inferred from this circumstantial evidence that both Rucker and Eidsmoe were aware that she was in his vehicle in violation ofthe no contact order, and were attempting to conceal Eidsmoe' s presence and the violation from police. Moreover, thejury could have inferred Rucker' s knowledge ofEidsmoe' s presence from the evidence that 

### Ruckerwas driving the van with at least.partial visibility ofthe rear compartment in which Eidsmoe was found and that Eidsmoe could not have entered the van from behind the partition 

### sheet. In the aggregate, sufficient evidence supported a finding that Rucker knowinglyviolated the order.

C!No. 46703 - 8 -II CONCLUSION 

### We hold that sufficient evidence supported thejury'sverdict. Accordingly,we affirm Rucker' s conviction. 

### A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, butwill be filed forpublic record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered.

We concur:
MELNICK, J.

SUTT01 B 

## GE C.J.