### INTHE COURTOFAPPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON c 

## STATEOFWASHINGTON, "° ^ Respondent,

v. CO., Appellant. m ~CJ No. 68566-0-1 ^ p no '

--

_ 

### DIVISIONONE ^ SS'" UNPUBLISHED OPINION <? <n</> CD o'S no ii:< FILED: April29, 2013 Appelwick, J. — CO. argues that there is insufficient evidence to sustain his convictionfor residential burglary. We affirm. FACTS 

### On January 27, 2011, while John and Barbara Duncan were away at work,
someone broke into their home. Barbara returned home at 6:30 p.m. to discover that 

### the living room televisionwas missing. She called 911. Officer Eddie Ochartresponded. He observed muddytiretracks inthefront yard 

### and the gateto the backyard was unlatched. At the rear of the house, muddy footprints led to the back porch and across the porch to the living room window. The living room window was unlocked, a muddy footprint was found on the window sill, and muddy footprints were found inside the home. None ofthe muddy footprints matched anyone living inthe house. Officer Ochart noticed fingerprints on the exteriorofthe living room 

### window. The fingerprints were consistent with someone placing their hands on the lower window pane and pressing the glass inward to disengage the lock and slide the 

### window open. He concluded that the window was the burglar's point of entry and requested a fingerprintexaminer.No. 68566-01-1/2


### Latent print examiner Cynthia Zeller recovered five fingerprints from the living room window. Zeller compared the fingerprints to the Automated Fingerprint Identification Systemdatabase and matched four ofthemto CO. Thefifth printwas not
a conclusive match, but it was too similar to C.O.'s prints to exclude as a possible match. The Statecharged CO. with onecountofresidential burglary. CO. was not a stranger to the Duncan family. John and Barbara's grandson, N.D., who periodically lived with them in the home, was friends with CO. when they
were in elementary school. Approximately four to six years before the date of the break-in, John Duncan told CO. he was no longer welcome in the house. At trial, Barbara Duncan testified that, sincethen, she had not seen CO. atthe house. Zeller testified that although it cannot be conclusively determined how long 

### fingerprints last outdoors, they can be degraded by weather. She also testified that fingerprints on nonporous surfaces, such as glass, are "pretty fragile." John Duncan also testified that, until shortly before the break-in, an air 

### conditioning unitwasinstalled in theliving room window.1 Theairconditionerrequired the lower windowpane to be open. When open, the lower windowpane was on the 

### inside ofthe house, leaving itunexposed to the outdoors. He also stated thatthe yard

was fenced. CO. testified attrial that he touched the window in October 2010 in orderto help 

### N.D. get into the house, but the trial court rejected this testimony as not credible. The trial courtfound CO. guilty. He appeals.


### 1 Barbara Duncan testified that they removed the air conditioning unit in September2010.No. 68566-01-1/3

DISCUSSION CO. contends that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for 

### residential burglary.2 He arguesthat the Statefailed to establish that his fingerprints
were impressed atthetime ofthe crime. When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency ofthe evidence, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and determine whether any rational trieroffact could havefound the crime's essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Williams. 137 Wn. App. 736, 743, 154 P.3d 322 (2007). We consider both circumstantial and direct evidence as equally reliable and defer to the trier of fact on 

### issues of conflicting testimony, witness credibility, and the persuasiveness of the evidence. State v. Thomas. 150 Wn.2d 821, 874-75, 83 P.3d 970 (2004), affd, 166 Wn.2d 380, 208 P.3d 1107 (2009). 

### Fingerprint evidence alone is sufficient to support a conviction if the trier of fact could reasonably infer that the fingerprints were impressed at the time of the crime. State v. Lucca. 56 Wn. App. 597, 599, 784 P.2d 572 (1990). InLucca, the defendant's fingerprint was found on a piece of broken glass originating from the point of entry, which was a window atthe rearof a residence, enclosed by fences. Jd. at 600-01. No 

### directevidence showed the printwas made at thetime ofthe burglary, and no evidence 

### placed the defendant in the vicinity at the time ofthe burglary. ]d. at 599. But, the resident did not know the defendant or extend permission to enter. Id. at 601. The defendant offered no alternate explanation for how his prints came to be on the glass. 

### 2CO. also disputes thevalidity of the science offingerprintevidence, but that is not atissue here because CO. does not contestthatthefingerprints found on the glass belong to him.No. 68566-01-1/4
Jd And, the window was in a location thatwas generally inaccessible to the public. Jd. at 603. We concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's conviction. ]d CO. attempts to distinguish Lucca by pointing outthat, unlikethe victim in Lucca, here the Duncans knew CO., and unlikethe defendant in Lucca, here CO. proffered an alternate explanation as to how his fingerprints came to be on the glass. Those distinctions do not warrant a contrary result. Although the Duncans knew CO., John 

### Duncan told CO. that he was no longer welcome at the house. And, the trial court found that C.O.'s alternative version ofevents was not credible. 

### Moreover, C.O.'s fingerprints were on the glass. A latent fingerprint expert testified thatfingerprints on glass are fragile. Until shortly before the crime, the portion ofthe window where the fingerprints were found was in an upward position, where it 

### could not be reached. The pattern of the fingerprints was consistent with a forceful motion intended to defeat the lock. John Duncan told the defendant four to six years 

### prior to the break in that he was not welcome in his home, and Brenda Duncan testified that, since then, she hadn't seen CO. at the house. The evidence was sufficientfor a rational trieroffactto findthatCO. committed residential burglary. We affirm.

WE CONCUR: 

# c:TV;*y^ ^3