o ro t r\ • *-. S -Ac. CO 5>X<' C— rrj


### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON g S^ CO cr^ STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, 1 DIVISION ONE ) No. 68137-1-1 CO

v. JEFFREY STUART BEASLEY, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION Appellant. ) FILED: June 17, 2013 Dwyer, J. — Following a jury trial in King County Superior Court, Jeffrey 

### Beasley was convicted ofassault in the fourth degree, five counts offelony violation of a no-contact order, and tampering with a witness. Beasley appeals from his conviction ofwitness tampering, contending that there was insufficient 

### evidence to support this conviction. Because a rational trier of fact could have found the elements ofwitness tampering beyond a reasonable doubt, we disagree. Accordingly, we affirm.
I 

### Danitra Powell moved inwith her boyfriend, Beasley, in October 2010. On June 20, 2011, Powell came home from school and discovered that Beasley was 

### searching through herbelongings because he was suspicious that she had been unfaithful to him. Beasley and Powell subsequently engaged in a verbal quarrel, afterwhich Beasley became physically violent with Powell. Throughout theNo. 68137-1-1/2
remainder ofthe evening and early morning, he grabbed, pushed, pinched, choked, and bit her. This altercation lasted until Powell and Beasley fell asleep, at approximately 6:00 a.m. the following morning. When Beasley and Powell woke up later that evening, on June 21, 2010, Beasley began to search Powell's cellular phone. Fearful that Beasley would become angry again, Powell removed the screen to the bedroom window, exited the house through the window, and fled to a neighbor's residence. She used her neighbor's telephone to place one call to her mother and another call to 911. 

### The police arrived shortlythereafter and documented numerous injuries on 

### Powell's body, which included bruises, abrasions, bite marks, and red marks. A 

### police officer received a signed, written statement from Powell that described the
events that had transpired. 

### Powell stayed with her mother for one week, afterwhich she moved back 

### in with Beasley. During that week, Beasley contacted Powell several times by e-mail, and Powell visited Beasley at his house at least twice. On July 1, 2011, after Powell returned to live with Beasley, the State filed an information charging 

### Beasley with one count ofassaultin the second degree and onecount offelony
harassment. 

### On July 11, 2011, Powell metwith a detective to recant the written statementthat she had previously provided. She fabricated a new story in which 

### she claimed that her injuries were the result of a fight with anotherwoman. She 

### latertestified that she presented this false account at Beasley's behest. Hetold her that if she did not change her statement, he would be injail for a long time.
-2-No. 68137-1-1/3
Powell testified that she chose to comply with Beasley's request because she felt sorry for him. 

### On July 12, 2011, Beasley was arrested, arraigned, and taken into 

### custody. Ano-contact order was also issued, which prohibited Beasleyfrom contacting Powell, including by telephone. 

### Between July 19 and July 31, 2011, while injail awaiting trial, Beasley 

### placed a series oftelephone calls to his niece, Jennifer Beasley, who thereafter connected the calls to Powell. These calls were recorded by the facility in which 

### Beasley was incarcerated. Pertinent excerpts from thetelephone conversations

are as follows:1 

### [BEASLEY]: Then he's talking about it going ontrial, talking about urn well it's hard to beat these cases, especially ifshe 

### gets on the stand
.. . once she gets on the stand. I said well she's not, you know what I'm saying, Idon't even think she's gonna be there, man. [POWELL]: Uh-huh. 

### [BEASLEY]: Iwas like look in orderfor herto getthere she has to get a subpoena. Ifshe doesn't get the subpoena . . . 

### they canonly issue 'em a material witness warrantfor 72 hours. [POWELL]: Uh-huh. 

### [BEASLEY]: You know what I'm saying. Ifshewent out oftown, like California, they don't even extradite back. [POWELL]: Yeah. 

### [BEASLEY]: You know what I'm saying for, for a material witness warrant. . . . 

### [BEASLEY]: Idon't know what's gonna go on, but I just hope she's careful. If she's not gonna show up Ihope she's 

### careful. Are you sure she's notshowing up? [JENNIFER]: Naw. [BEASLEY]: Huh? 

### 1Attrial, six ofthese recordedjail telephone calls were offered, admitted, and played to 

### thejury. Thejurywas also provided atranscript ofthe calls as alistening aid.No. 68137-1-1/4 [JENNIFER]: Naw I ain't see her. [BEASLEY]: Are you, are you guys sure that she's not showing up at the court? [POWELL]: Yep.
. . . [BEASLEY]: [B]ecause ifshe don't want to come all she has to do is not answer her subpoena. And then at the same time when they put the material witness warrant out all she has to do is not answer or take a trip to Cali or go to the uh drunk boxer's parents house. Huh? For a few days. Huh? [POWELL]: Uh-huh. [BEASLEY]: Goodness sakes it's too easy. You know what I'm saying.
. . . 

### [BEASLEY]: [Y]ou cannot. . . basically uh you have the right to face your accuser meaning that ifyour accuser does not show up there is no case. They have to dismiss, without an accuser there is not witness, there is no.. . 

### [POWELL]: Okay. Okay and that's fine. This
.. .and I'mgonna tell you like this. Remember that you said that because she had no intention of ever. . . she doesn't 

### have any intention on going up to the fucking court anymore. 

### Based upon the content ofthese recorded telephone conversations, the State amended the information against Beasley to include a charge of tampering with a witness in violation of RCW 9A.72.120, and five counts of felony violation
of the no-contact order. 

### Following trial, thejury returned guilty verdicts as to the crime oftampering with a witness and as to the lesser crime of assault inthe fourth degree. Thejury 

### alsofound Beasley guilty as to thefive counts offelony violation ofa court order. The trial court thereafter imposed a concurrent sentence of 60 months incarceration for his convictions of tampering with a witness and violation of the 

### no-contact order, and a consecutive misdemeanor sentence of 180 days of

4-No. 68137-1-1/5

incarceration for the assault conviction. Beasley appeals.
II Beasley asserts that his witness tampering conviction should be reversed and dismissed with prejudice. This is so, he argues, because insufficient 

### evidence supported this conviction. Wedisagree.2 On a challenge to the sufficiency ofthe evidence, we must determine 

### whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier offact could have found all ofthe essential elements ofthe crime 

### beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 LEd.2d 560 (1979); State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216, 221, 616 P.2d 628 

### (1980). The elements of a crime may be established bydirect orcircumstantial evidence, one being no more or less valuable than the other. State v. Delmarter. 94 Wn.2d 634, 638, 618 P.2d 99 (1980). We draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor ofthe State and interpret them most strongly against the defendant. State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992). A 

### claim ofinsufficiency ofthe evidence admits thetruth ofthe State's evidence and all inferences that can be drawn therefrom. Salinas. 119 Wn.2d at 201. 

### To convict Beasley of tampering with a witness, the applicable jury 

### instruction required that the State prove the following elements beyond a 2In his statement ofadditional grounds, Beasleyasserts multiple additional contentions, 

### including (1) that his conviction for assault in the fourth degree should be reversed because, he asserts, Powell made several inconsistent statements before andduring trial, (2) thathis five counts offelony violation ofa no-contact order should bereversed, and(3) thattheprosecutors 

### impermissibly used intimidation tactics against him. After athorough review ofthe record, we determine thatBeasley's contentions warrant neither appellate reliefnorfurther discussion.No. 68137-1-1/6

reasonable doubt: (1) That during a period of time intervening between July 7, 2011, through July 31, 2011, the defendant attempted to induce a person to testify falsely or, without right or privilege to do so, 

### withhold any testimony or absent himself or herself from any official proceeding; and (2) That the other person was a witness; and (3) That the acts occurred in the State ofWashington. Beasley challenges the sufficiency of the evidence based upon his assertion that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he 

### tampered with a witness. In so contending, Beasley points to the language set forth in RCW 9A.72.120,3 which requires the State to establish that a defendant 

### "attempted] to induce" a witness totestify falsely, absent herselffrom trial, or withhold testimony. Beasleyasserts that the "attempts to induce" element was not satisfied because the evidence demonstrated that Powell "needed no 

### persuasion to change herstatements." This contention lacks merit. In asserting that Powell "needed nopersuasion" to change her statement, 

### Beasley mischaracterizes and ignores theclear language ofRCW 9A.72.120. According toBeasley's contention, the statute required the State toprove that Beasley did, in fact, persuadePowell to change herstatement. This isnot so. The statute's plain language indicates that a conviction ofwitness tampering

3RCW9A.72.120provides, in relevant part: Aperson isguilty oftampering with a witness ifhe orshe attempts toinduce a witness
... to: (a) Testify falsely or, without right orprivilege to do so, towithhold any testimony; or (b)Absenthimselfor herselffrom such proceedings; or (c) Withhold from a law enforcement agency information which he orshe has relevantto a criminal investigation or the abuse or neglect of a minor child to the agency.No. 68137-1-1/7 requires proof that the defendant made an attemptto induce a witness to absent herselffrom the proceeding, testify falsely, or withhold testimony. RCW 9A.72.120. Thus, whether Powell was independently motivated to change her statement or absent herselffrom Beasley's trial is of no moment. Nor is it 

### significantwhether Beasley succeeded in his attempt to procure Powell's unavailability during his trial. The gravamen of the offense is his attempt to induce or bring about the referenced results. Furthermore, sufficient evidence was presented at trial such that a rational 

### trier of fact could reasonably conclude that the "attempts to induce" requirement 

### was met. First, the content of the jail telephone calls could lead a reasonable 

### jurortoconclude thatBeasley attempted to dissuadePowell from appearing at his trial. Beasley's statements madein thetelephone calls demonstrate that he
was instructing Powell totravel to California during his trial in orderto avoid 

### testifying. Afact finder could also reasonably inferthatBeasley wastelling Powell that she could ignore the State's subpoena ifshe so desired. Indeed, 

### Beasley concedes in his briefing that "[i]n those calls, Beasley asked Powell not to appear in court." 

### Moreover, in addition to the telephone calls that were played to thejury, 

### Beasley's testimony attrial provided further evidence thatcould lead to a reasonable inference that he was attempting to discourage Powell from testifying. 

### At trial, Beasley testified that, in thesejail telephone calls, he was informing Powell that she could choose whether to testify or not, and that if she wished not 

### to do so, she could ignore the State'ssubpoena. Beasley also admitted in his

-7-No. 68137-1-1/8 testimony that, in these telephone calls, he was notifying Powell that ifshe went to California during his trial, she would not be extradited, and that she could not be forced to testify. Finally, he testified that itwas important to him that Powell not appear at his trial. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational juror could reasonably infer that Beasley was attempting to induce Powell to withhold evidence, testify falsely, or absent herselffrom his trial. Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict.
Affirmed.

We concur: