IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE STATE OF WASHINGTON,

Respondent,

v. M.P.B

. , Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 37832

- 2

- III

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

S IDDOWAY , J.

— M.P.B. appeals his adjudication as guil ty of the third degree theft of a set of elk antlers belonging to his grandfather. He contends that (1) insu fficient evidence supported the element of an intent to deprive, (2) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct by questioning and argument that shifted the burden of proof , and (3) a community supervision condition prohibiting contact with “any persons deemed to be harmful” is unconstitutionally vague. The State responds that M.P.B. has completed his communit y supervision , and it
asked that we d ismiss the appeal based on a stipulation of the parties. After repeated requests that the State provide us with M.P.B. ’s stipulation, however, none was forthcoming. Addressing the appeal on the merits, we find that the challenge to the condition of 

### FILED MARCH 8 , 2022 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division IIINo. 37832

- 2

- III

State v. M.P.B.

2 commun ity supervision is moot and no other error or abuse of discretion is identified.
We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The following facts are primarily drawn from the trial court’s findings of fact. While M.P.B.’s opening brief assigns error to “th e findings and conclusions following the bench trial,” Appellant’s Opening Br. at 1, he fails to separately identify challenged findings as required by RAP 10.3(g) and does not present argument why specific findings are unsupported or cite to the record in support of that argument. The findings are
therefore verities. Inland Foundry Co. v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus. , 106 Wn . App. 333, 340, 24 P.3d 424 (2001)

. In April 2020, M.P.B., then 16 years old, was living with his grandparents, Micky
Bernier and Debra Turner. On April 13, Mr. Bernier was told by his granddaughter that a set of elk antlers was missing from his basement. Mr. Bernier was u pset, because the
antlers were from the first elk he ever shot, when he was aged 16 and hunting with his
father. Mr. Bernier had mounted the antlers himself.
Mr. Bernier called the Asotin County Sheriff’s Office that day to report the theft. Sergeant Cory Kingsbury took the report. Mr. Bernier told the sergeant that he suspected the antlers had been taken by his gra ndson, M.P.B. , and M.P.B.’s friend, Dylan Haworth.
Mr. Bernier would later testify that about a month before the antlers went missing,
M.P.B. asked if he could “take the[ ] antlers up to Moscow [ , Idaho], ” saying he couldNo. 37832

- 2

- III

State v. M.P.B.

3 “sell them and make some money, qu ick money.” R eport of P roceedings (RP) at 36. Mr.
Bernier would testify that he told M.P.B. “absolutely not,” and to “ keep h is hands off of them.” Id

. A couple of days after reporting the theft , Mr. Bernier called the Asotin County Sheriff’s D epartment again, this time to report having seen a red SUV parked on Highway 95 that he knew was a vehicle u sed by Mr. Hawor th. Mr. Bernier suspected the
SUV had been used in the theft of his antlers. At the behest of the Asotin County Sheriff’s D epartment , Matthe w Alldredge, a La tah County, Idaho , sheriff’s deputy , traveled to the SUV’ s location. A fter seeing a set of antlers inside, he impounded the
vehicle. The red SUV turned out to be owned by Mr. Haworth’s mother. Upon learning of the impoundment, she disa vowed ownership of the antlers seen inside her car. She consented to her car being searched and to the antlers being seized. Mr. Bernier
identified the antlers seized from the SUV as his . M.P.B. was charged with theft in the third degree. Adjudicati on and Disposition Hearing
The ma tter proceeded to an adjudication and disposition hearing in juvenile court.
The State called Mr. Bernier, Sergeant Kingsbury and Deputy Alldredge as witnesses.
M.P.B. testified in his own defense. Micky Bernier testifi ed consistent with the facts set forth above. He also testifiedNo. 37832

- 2

- III

State v. M.P.B.

4 that after the antlers were recovered , he listened to a recorded conversation between his
wife and M.P.B. in which M.P.B. admitted to Ms. Turner that he had taken the antlers
and was sorry. The recording itself was not offered as evidence ; Mr. Bernier testified, “I can’t find it. I’m sorry

. ” RP at 37

. M.P.B. admitted at trial that he took the an tlers, but testified that he received his grandmother ’s permission to borrow them

. He testifie d he wanted to use them to decorate his and Mr. Haworth’s newly

- acquired, sparely furnished apartment for a gathering with some friends. M.P.B. testified that he and Mr. Haworth were retu rning the
antlers to his grandparents’ house when the ir car became d isabled. He testified that while the SUV was found parked heading in the opposite d irection, it was only because they turned around upon having car trouble. M.P.B. testified that the reason he did not ask Mr. Bernier’s permission to take the antlers was because he did not have his telephone number, and it was his understanding that his grandmother, as Mr. Bernier’s wife, could give him permission. During M.P.B.’s direct examination, M.P.B. was asked about whether Ms. Turner typically recorded telepho ne conversations, and he answered, “Yes, her phone automatically does. It records every phone call that she gets.” RP at 90. This led to the following cross

- examination of M.P.B. that eventually drew objections and the claim of prosecutorial misconduct asserted on appeal:No. 37832

- 2

- III

State v. M.P.B.

5

[PROSECUTOR]: Let me ask you this. If you knew that your grandmother recorded all the calls and you testified you did, why didn’t you ask your grandmother for a copy of the conversation where she told you

— where you claim she said it w as okay to take the antlers?

. . . . A. Because she

— if I would have asked her she still would have said no because I would not help with getting my dad out of jail. R P at 96. ( M.P.B.’s answer about “not help[ing] with getting [his] dad out of jail” related

t o prior testimony. In cross

- examination by the defense, Mr. Bernier admitted that M.P.B.’s father was in prison, having been convicted of raping M.P.B.’s sisters. Mr. Bernier testified that the conviction had been based on “a bunch of lies” by the childr en, including by M.P.B

. RP at 43. ) The questioning continued: Q

. But you knew there was a recording? A

. Yes. Q

. And you didn’t make any effort to get that recording to prove that she’d given you permission? A. I did. Q

. What did you do? A. I asked her. Q. And what did she tell you? A. She has no recording. Q. All right. You knew that

— the whole heart and soul of your case is that your grandmother gave you permission. Is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. Why didn’t you subpoena her? A. I

— what does subpoena m ean?No. 37832

- 2

- III

State v. M.P.B.

6

Q. Why didn’t you bring her to court to testify to that? A. She

— I’m 17. I don’t think I can make her. I’m not sure what that means. Q. Do you think that if the heart and soul of your case is that you had permission, don’t you think that the person t hat gave you permission should tell the Judge that you had permission? A. Yes. Q. But you didn’t bring her in? A. I didn’t know I was able to. I’m sorry. Q. You knew that your grandfather from day one said you took the antlers without permission. A

. Yes.

. . . . Q. Why didn’t you bring Mr. [Dillon] Hayworth to testify that you were just taking the antlers for a weekend for a party? A. Because he has warrants in Washington so he’s not coming down. Q. You didn’t make any effort to bring him in ? A. I did. I told him I really

— RP at 96

- 98. At this point, defense counsel objected:

[DEFENSE COUNSEL] : Objection, Your Honor. It’s not his responsibility, it’s mine and I did contact the State and ask for help in getting him and getting informatio n so he could be subpoenaed. [PROSECUTOR] : But this is a witness particularly avai lable to [M.P.B.] and who

— who under the missing witness doctrine he should have brought these witnesses in. RP at 98. The lawyers argued briefly about whether “ grandmother’ s permission”
had been disclosed as a defense. The court then ruled on the pending objection:No. 37832

- 2

- III

State v. M.P.B.

7

THE COURT: Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. First of all, a Defendant has no obligation to present any evidence. And secondly, this is more argument upon closing than it is questioning of the Defendant. So, I’m going to ask that you cease this line of questioning and proceed to another issue. RP at 99. A few moments later, the prosecutor asked M.P.B., “D o you have any evidence at all to support your claim that yo u had permission?” RP at 100. M.P.B. answered, “Yes,”
but defense counsel objected , “[T]he burden is not on us

. ” Id. T he trial court struck the question. During its closing statement, the State argued: Now, after all the evidence is laid out, he [ M.P.B.] comes in and he says I did it because I had permission from my grandmother. Yet, he produces absolutely no evidence to support that. And it is true that it is not incumbent on a Defendant to present any evidence whatsoever. But once the Defendan t asserts a claim, a defense, it is incumbent on him to support that. He can’t simply come in and say yeah, I did it but I had permission. There is no evidence to support his version.
RP at 103

- 04. M.P.B. did not object to the State’s argument.
The t rial court found that M.P.B.’s claims were not credible. Its findings state specifically that it disbelieved M.P.B.’s testimony that he did not have Mr. Bernier’s phone number . It found, based on Mr. Bernier’s testimony, that M.P.B. phoned his grandfathe r to request an unrelated favor on the day after Mr. Bernier reported the antlers
stolen.
T he trial court also s pecifically found it was not credible that Ms. Turner wouldNo. 37832

- 2

- III

State v. M.P.B.

8 have given M.P.B. permission to take an item that was so important to Mr. Bernier. It specifically found it was not credible that M.P.B. thought he had permission to take the antlers when Mr. Bernier had so emphatically rejected M.J.B.’s request that he be allowed to sell or pawn them. The court found M.P.B. guilty of third degree th eft and imposed six months of community supervision. One condition of M.P.B.’s community supervision was that he

“ not have any contact, except through counsel or a probation officer, with any persons deemed to be harmful to the successful completion of pr obation and the following
individual [ ] : Dylan Ha worth (Krieger). ” C lerk’s P apers (CP) at 21

. M.P.B. appeals.
ANALYSIS I. T HE S TATE PRESENTED SUFFI CIENT EVIDENCE OF M.P.B.’ S INTENT TO DEPRIVE HIS GRANDFATHER OF THE ANTLERS RCW 9A.56.050 (a) provides th at a person is guilty of theft in the third degree if
he or she commits theft of property or services that does not exceed $750 in value. RCW 9A.56.020(1) (a) defines “theft” to mean “[t] o wrongfully obtain or exert unauthorized control over the property or services of another or the value thereof, with intent to deprive him or her of such property or services.” M.P.B. contends there is
insufficient evidence that he acted “with intent to deprive” Mr. Bernier of the elk antlers. “[F]ollowing a bench trial , appellate review is limited to determining whether substantial evidence supports the findings of fact and, if so, whether the findings supportNo. 37832

- 2

- III

State v. M.P.B.

9 the conclusions of law.” State v. Homan , 18 1 Wn.2d 102 , 105

- 06 , 330 P.3d 182 (2014)

. T his court views “the ev idence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and determine[s] whether any rational fact finder could have found the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 105. Substantial evidence is evidence “sufficient to persuade a fair

- min ded person of the truth of the asserted premise.” Id. at 106. “Deference must be given to the trier of fact who resolves conflicting testimony and evaluates the credibility of witnesses and persuasiveness of material evidence.” State v.
Carver , 113 Wn.2 d 591, 604, 781 P.2d 1308 , 789 P.2d 306 (1989). The challenging party bears the burden of demonstrating that a finding is unsupported by substantial
evidence. State v. Vickers , 148 Wn.2d 91, 116, 59 P.3d 58 (2002).
M.P.B. contends that no direct eviden ce supports that he took the elk antlers with the intent to deprive. He argues that his own testimony was that he took the antlers with Ms. Turner’s permission and there was no evidence to refute that

— Mr. Bernier testified only that he did not give perm ission. M.P.B.’s argument assumes his testimony about receiving permissi on from his grandmother is entitled to some weight. But the trial court gave it no weight. It made a general finding that M.P.B. was not credible, and a specific finding that he wa s not credible when it came to his clai m that his grandmother gave him permission to take the
antlers. We do not reweigh credibility determinations made by the trier of fact. Morse v.
Antonellis , 149 Wn.2d 572, 574, 70 P.3d 125 (2003).No. 37832

- 2

- III

State v. M.P.B.

10 In addition, Mr. Bernier testified to hearing the recording of M.P.B. apologizing to his gran dmother for taking the antlers. Mr. Bernier also testified about M.P.B.’s stated
intere st a month earlier in pawning or selling the antlers in Moscow and to his own emphatic resp onse, including that M.P.B “keep his hands off” the antlers

. RP at 36. Deputy Alldredge testified to locating the antlers not in M.P.B. ’s and Mr. Haworth’s apartment, but in a disabled SUV located on Highway 95 heade d away from the Bernier
home and towar d Moscow. Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the trial court could reasonably find an intent on M.P.B.’s part to deprive his grandfather of possession of the antlers.
II. P ROSECUTORIAL MISCOND UCT IS NOT SHOWN
M .P.B. next conten ds the State c ommi tted prosecutorial misconduct when it engaged in “burden

- shifting” cross - examination and closing argument about why M.P.B.
did not call his grandmot her or Mr. Haworth as witnesses at trial. He argues that

“ [ b ] ecause [he] objected to the alleged miscon duct at trial,” he is merely required to show that the prosecutor’s conduct was improper and prejudicial in the context of the entire trial. Br. of Appellant at 11; State v. Walker , 182 Wn.2d 463, 4 77, 341 P.3d 976 (2015).
But M.P.B. made only two object ions , late in the complained

- of questioning , and both
were sustained. H is complaint on appeal is about unobjected

- to questioning and argument . His burden is to demonstrate misconduct so flagrant and ill intentioned that an
instruction would not have cure d the prejudice. Id. at 477

- 78.No. 37832

- 2

- III

State v. M.P.B.

11 It is improper for the prosecution to comment on a defendant’s lack of evidence. State v. Sundberg , 185 Wn.2d 147, 153, 370 P.3d 1 (2016)

. “ One exception to this rule is that if the defendant testifies about an exculpator y theory or defense that could have been corroborated by an available witness, then, in limited circumstances, the State may call attention to the defendant’ s failure to offer corroborating evidence. ” Id. (citing State v.
Blair , 117 Wn.2d 479, 481, 816 P. 2d 718 (1991)). “[I]n limited situations where a defendant actually testifies[,] prosecutors are permitted to comment on a defendant’s failure to produce corroborative evidence to support their testimony and . . . such comments do not improperly shift the burden of proof.” Id. at 15 5

- 5 6. This is because

“‘ [w]hen a defendant advances a theory exculpating [her], the theory is not immunized
from attack. On the contrary, the evidence supporting a defendant’s theory of the case is subject to the same searchi ng examination as the State’s evidence. ’” State v. Vassar , 188 Wn. App . 251, 260, 352 P.3d 856 (2015) (quoting State v. Contreras , 57 Wn. App. 471, 476, 788 P.2d 1114 (1990)). In Vassar , in which the defendant testified that a piece of inculpatory evide nce was forged, it was not improper for the State to comment that no evidence showed the evidence was forged. Id. at 256.
When a person who could have been a witness at the trial is not called to testify, the trier of fact may reasonably infer that the “ m issing witness’s ” testimony would be unfavorable to the party failing to call the witness. In a jury trial , the inference can only be instructed on and argued if the evidence meets all of the following requirements:No. 37832

- 2

- III

State v. M.P.B.

12 (1) the witness must be pe culiarly ava ilable to the party, (2) the testimony must relate to an issue of fundamental importance as contrasted to a trivial or unimportant issue, and (3) the circumstances must establish, as a matter of reasonable probability, that the party would not knowingly f

ail to call the witness in question unless the witness’ s testimony would be damaging. State v. Montgomery , 163 Wn.2d 577, 183 P.3d 267 (2008). Had M.P.B.’s been a jury trial, the State would have been required to persuade the
trial court outside the pre sence of the jury that it was entitled to a missing witness instruction and to argue the inference

— and courts are cautioned to use such an instruction sparingly. See 11 W ASHINGTON P RACTICE : W ASHINGTON P ATTERN J URY
I NSTRUCTIONS : C RIMINAL § 5.20, cmt. at 19 4

- 95 (5 th e d. 2021 ) . In a bench trial, argument that a party is entitled to urge this “missing witness” inference must be presented to the judge

— the trier of fact

— because there is no other gatekeeper. M.P.B. acknowledges that because of the “unique dema nds” bench trials place on judges, “requiring them to sit as both arbiters of law and as finders of fact,” Washington case law presumes that the judge in a bench trial does not consider inadmissible evidence in rendering a verdict. State v. Read , 147 Wn.2 d 238, 245

- 46, 53 P.2d 26 (2002). The presumption that the trial court in a bench trial has considered only admi ssible evidence does not apply w hen the judge actually considers matters that are inadmissible, however.
State v. Gower , 179 Wn.2d 851, 8 56, 3 21 P.2d 1178 (2014).No. 37832

- 2

- III

State v. M.P.B.

13 M.P.B.’s claim of prosecutorial misconduct fails. He does not demonstrate that the prosecutor’s unobjected

- to questions and ar gument were so flagrant and ill
intentioned that no instruction would have cured the prejudice. He does not demonstrate that the trial court actually consid ered any inadmissible evidence. The prosecutor might have believed his questions fell within the legitimate bounds of pointing out a lack of corroboration for the defense’s exculpatory theory and advanci ng a missing witness
inference. The prosecutor’s closing argument that “it is incumbent on [M.P.B.] to support [ his claim ],” falls outside the exception that permits the State to “call attention to” or “comment on” a defendant’s failure to offer evidence cor roborating an exculpatory theory, but the argu ment was made in a bench trial. And the judge had already commented that “a Defendant has no oblig ation to present any evidence.” RP at 104, 99 (emphasis added).
M.P.B. segue s at page 14 of his opening brief into a charge that the trial court itself misapplied the burden of proof. He relies on State v. Roberts , 88 Wn.2d 337, 562 P.2d 1259 (1977) , and the trial court’s finding 27. In finding 27, the trial court found that
M.P.B.’ s claim about having his gran dmother’s permission was not credible, and stated , in language to whi ch M.P.B. attaches significance, “nor is it supported by the evidence produced at trial.” CP at 25; see Br. of Appellant at 14.
Roberts held that in a second degree murder prosecution, b ecause a defendant’s
claim of self

- defense negates the essential element of lack of justification, the defendantNo. 37832

- 2

- III

State v. M.P.B.

14 is not r e quired to prove self

- defense. T he burden remains on the State to prove lack of justification. M.P.B. treats the trial court’s statem ent “nor is it supported by the evidence produced at trial” in finding 27 as equivalent to requiring a murder defendant to prove
self

- defense.
If M.P.B. proved that his grandmother gave him pe rmission to take the antlers, it would not negate any element of third degree thef t. His grandmother may have lacked authority to give permission. M.P.B. might have secured her permission so as not to encounter resistance when he took the antlers , at the same time fully intending to pa wn or sell them

. The claimed pe rmission was merely one piece of evidence in support of his defense theory of an innocent borrowing.
T hat the State bears the burden of proving every essential elem ent of a crime does

not mean it bears the burden of disproving each and every piece of evi dence re lied on by the defense for an exculpatory theory of the case. The trial court ’s finding that M.P.B.
failed to prove a non elemental piece of its defense theory d id not shift the burden of proof.
III. T HE CHALLENGE TO M.P.B.’ S COMMUNIT Y SUPERVISION CONDITION IS MOOT Finally, M.P.B. argues that the condition of his community supervision prohibiting him from contact “ except through counsel or a probation officer, with any persons deemed to be harmful to the successful completion of probation ” is uncons titutionally
vague. CP at 21 (emphasis added). The State’s report that M.P.B. has completed hisNo. 37832

- 2

- III

State v. M.P.B.

15 term of supervision without incident has significance in connection with this assignment
of error. A case is moot if a court can no longer provide effectiv e relief. State v. Gentry , 125 Wn.2d 570, 616, 888 P.2d 1105 (1995).
We may consider a moot issue that involves matters of continuing and substantial public interest. State v. Cruz , 189 Wn.2d 588, 59 7

- 9 8, 40 4 P.3d 70 (2017). But this challenge to the co mmunity supervision condition had become moot even before the
f iling of M.P.B.’s opening brief. 1 If there were reasons we sho uld consider this moot issue, M.P.B. should have identified and argued them. We decline to consider it

. Affirmed. A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW
2.06.040.

_____________________________ Siddoway, J.
WE CONCUR:

Pe nnell, C.J. Fearing, J.

1 The community supervision commenced with entry of the trial court’s order on adjudication and dispositi on entered on October 21, 2020. CP at 20

- 21.