ir' 

### ILED 

# UUUPiTOFAPPER+S ZGi 

### JUL --

# 7 AM g: 47 S

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

vPA JOEL DEREK EDWARDS, No. 46469 -1 - II

UNPUBLISHED OPINION
WORSWICK, P.J. — 

### Joel Edwards appeals his conviction fortampering with physical 

### evidence, arguing that the evidence was insufficientto support his conviction because it did not showthat an official proceeding was pending or about to be instituted. The State concedes the error. We accept the State' s concession and remand with instructions to vacate and dismiss with 

### prejudice the conviction fortampering with physical evidence. FACTS 

### Policeofficers initially contacted Edwards while responding to a call regarding Edwards 

### fighting with his stepson. Officers arrested Edwards on an unrelated outstanding warrant. Following the arrest,officers performed a general search forweapons and contraband. The
search did not produce anything of significance. While 

### being processed at the jail, EdwardsNo. 46469 -1 - II

moved his left hand to his mouth. Corrections officer Carpenter instructed Edwards to take his 

### hand away from his mouth. Officer Carpenterthen heard something hitthe floor. Officer Carpenter saw an object on the ground and slid it awayfrom'Edwards with his foot. Officer Carpenter retrieved the object, a small oxycodone pill. The State charged Edwards with one
count of unlawful possession of a controlled substance— oxycodone, and one count oftampering 

### with physical evidence. Thejury convicted Edwards on both charges. Edwards appeals his conviction fortampering with physical evidence. ANALYSIS Edwards argues, and the State concedes, that the evidence presented at trial was 

### insufficient to support a conviction fortampering with physical evidence. We acceptthe State' s concession because the record does not show that an official proceeding was pending or aboutto 

### be instituted relating to Edwards' s unlawful possession ofa controlled substance.

The State is required to prove each element ofthe crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. U.S. CONST. amend XIV; State v. Mau, 178 Wn.2d 308, 312, 308 P. 3d 629 (2013). A 

### challenge to the sufficiency ofevidence admits the truth ofthe State' s evidence and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom. State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 ( 1992). 

### On review,we considerwhether any rational trieroffact,viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could have found all ofthe elements ofthe crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Mason, 160 Wn.2d 910, 936, 162 P.3d 396 2007).

### Statutory interpretation is a question oflaw reviewed de novo. State v. Browne, 181 Wn. App. 756, 761, 327 P. 3d 63 ( 2014). Courts first examine the language ofthe statute andNo. 46469 -1 - II



### determine the plain meaning "from the ordinary meaning ofthe language at issue, the context of the statute in which that provision is found, related provisions, and the statutory scheme as a
whole." State v. Engel, 166 Wn.2d 572, 578, 210 P. 3d 1007 (2009). To prove the offense of 

### tampering with physical evidence,the State must demonstrate that Edwards, having reason to believe an official proceeding was aboutto be instituted, concealed evidence without legal authority with an intent to impair its availability at the proceeding. RCW 9A.72. 150( 1)( a). 

### When read as a whole, the plain language ofRCW 9A.72. 150 requires a connection between the " official proceeding ... 

### pending or about to be instituted" and the tampered evidence. The prohibited behavior described under RCW 9A.72. 150( 1)( a) requires an " intent to impair [the evidence' s] appearance, character, or availability in such pending orprospective
official proceeding." ( Emphasis added.) 

### There is no ambiguity in the statute; the prospective 

### proceeding must relate to the evidence being tampered with. 

### In this case, even accepting the evidence in the light mostfavorable to the State, no rational trier offact could have found that Edwards had reason to believe that an official 

### proceeding was aboutto be instituted relating to unlawful possession ofa controlled substance. 

### Edwards was arrested on an unrelated outstanding warrant. Until officer Carpenter retrieved the oxycodone pill, Edwards could not have had reason to believe that a proceeding would be initiated for unlawful possession of a controlled substance. 

### Accordingly,we hold thatno rational trieroffactcould.findthat Edwards had reasonto believe that an official proceeding was about to be instituted priorto tampering with evidence. Thus, we accept the State' s concession that there was insufficient evidence to prove every
element of the crime of

### tampering with physical evidence. We reverse the judgment and remandNo. 46469 -1 - II

with instructions to the trial court to vacate and dismiss with prejudice the conviction for tampering with physical evidence. 

### A majority ofthe panel having determined thatthis opinion will notbe printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06. 040, it is so ordered

Worswick, P.J. We concur:
Maxa, J.

Sutton, J.

M