Citations and pincites are based on the Westlaw online version of the cited material. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON,

Respondent , v. EMELEY GONZALEZ ,

Appellant. No. 79411

- 6

- I DIVISION ONE UNPUBLISHED OPINION

L EACH , J.

— Emeley Gonzalez appeals her conviction for trafficking in stolen property in the first degree. She challenges the sufficien cy of the evidence to prove she knew the property sold was stolen. Because the record contains sufficient evidence from which a rational juror could find that she did know the property was stolen beyond a reasonable doubt, we affirm. BACKGROUND 1 Mary Lucero is an elderly widow who lived alone in her long

- time residence at the time the events involved in this case happened. She has dementia. It has impacted her
short

- term memory causing her to repeat herself and forget things. Her condition made her “overly trusting” and impaired her judgment. Because she could no longer drive a car, she relied on friends and family to g et around. Mary had poor insight into her
dementia and she did not recognize her cognitive decline. Mary’s family hired Amy Astle

-

1 Because we are reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we describe the facts in the light mo st favorable to the State. State v. Luther , 157 Wn.2d 63, 77

- 78, 134 P.3d 205 (2006).No. 79411

- 6

- I/ 2

2

Raaen, a social worker s pecializing in geriatric health to assist with her care. Significant to this case, Mary’s long

- term memory remained intact. At trial, she provided lucid testimony about her family and the history of the watch involved in this case. Despite her progressive condition, Mary maintained an active life style . She received friends in her home, hiked , bowled w ith her family, attended church, and often
walked in the neighborhood to socialize. Mary’s activities included attending a fitness class for the elderly several times a week at a local YMCA. There, she met Emeley Gonzalez who attended the same class. Gonzalez was about 20 years younger than Mary. She could not speak due to an injury, but she communicated with Mary through gestures and written notes . Gonzalez told Mary she was a surgeon, but she was not a surgeon . They became friendly and Gonzalez wou ld sometimes drive Mary home from the fitness class. When Gonzalez came into Mary’ s home, she surprised Mary with how she moved around the home and
went through the refrigerator. While Mary did not rebuke Gonzalez for this , in order to avoid insulting he r, she felt wary that Gonzalez felt “so free in [her] house.” During one visit, Gonzalez brought small plastic bags and offered to “sort” Mary’s jewelry. Mary later realized that all her valuable jewelry, including a gold watch her deceased husband had pu rchased for her many years ago, and her wedding rings w ere missing and only the inexpensive costume jewelry remained. Mary told Astel

- Raaen about Gonzalez. Their conversation made Astel

- Raaen concerned that Gonzalez was taking advantage of Mary. She repo rted her con cerns to Mary’s daughter

- in

- law who shared this information with Mary’s adult son, Danny Lucero.No. 79411

- 6

- I/ 3

3

Danny went to his mother’s home and talked with her about Gonzalez. Danny then looked for Mary’s jewelry and found that “all her important stuff was gone.” He assumed that Mary had hidden it somewhere in the home and enlisted the entire family to look for the missing items. None of th e missing jewelry was found at that time or later when Mary moved and the whole house was emptied. Danny had known his mother to make gifts of money, but she never gifted any of her jewelry. So , he reported his concerns to Detectiv e Lievero of the Normandy Park
P olice Department . Lievero then interviewed Mary at her home. Lievero observed that Mary could not recall some details, but she was lucid during the interview and had no difficulty understanding the purpose of his questions. During a follow

- up interview weeks later, Mary provided an account consistent with her first interview.
Lievero searched a databa se that records pawn transactions to see if Gonzalez had transferred any jewelry. He learned that Gonzalez had recently sold several items of jewelry to Bellevue Rare Coins. The manager of Bellevue Rare Coins, Deidre Burleson, handled this sale. She
te stified that Gonzalez sold her a 14

- caret gold Logines woman’s watch for $295.50 and some gold earrings. Gonzalez told Burleson the jewelry belonged to her cousin. Lievero identified the watch as Mary’s by comparing it to old appraisal photos in the fami ly’s possession. Danny and Mary also both id entified the watch as Mary’s

. The State charged Gonzalez with trafficking in stolen property in the first degree. At trial, Gonzalez testified that as a thank you gesture for driving her, Mary gave her the watch as a gift. She also denied telling Burleson anything when she sold the watch. SheNo. 79411

- 6

- I/ 4

4

also testified that she was not aware Mary had dementia and never saw any evidence of
it. ANALYSIS Gonzalez makes one claim on appeal , that the State failed to presen t sufficient evidence to allow a jury to find she knew the watch was stolen. When reviewing a defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case, Washington a ppellate courts review the record, viewing the evidence in the light mo st favorable to the State , to determine whether any rational jury could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. 2 We draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor of the State and strongly against the defendant. 3 A claim of insufficiency admits the truth of the State’s 

### evidence and all inferences reasonably drawn from it. 4 

### We consider circumstantial evidence as reliable as
direct evidence. 5 

### We defer to the jury to resolve conflicting testimony, determine
witness credibility, weigh evidence, and draw reasonable inferences from the testimony. 6
Gonzalez admits that she sol d the watch. The only element at issue is whether she knew th e watch was stolen. The State had to prove she had actual knowledge , not just that she “should have known” the watch was stolen. 7 Washington courts recognize

2 State v. Salinas , 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992). 3 State v. Salinas , 119 Wn.2d at 201. 4 State v. Salinas , 119 Wn.2d at 201. 5 State v. Johnson , 159 Wn. App. 766, 774, 247 P.3d 11 (2011). 6 State v. Thomas , 150 Wn.2d 821, 874

- 875, 83 P.3d 970 (2004). 7 State v. Allen , 182 Wn.2d 364, 374, 341 P.3d 268 (2015).No. 79411

- 6

- I/ 5

5

the State can rarely prove guilty knowledge through direct, positive evidence, but must usually rely on circumstantial evidence. 8 Here, a jury could reasonably infer that Gonzalez knew the watch was stolen when she sold it. Mary clearly testified that she did not give Gonzalez the watch and she did not remember giving Gonzalez anything: Q Did you give this watch to Emely Gonzalez? A No, I did not. Q And did you give any other jewelry to Emely Gonzalez, any other jewelry of yours? A I don’t recall giving her an y. That one day I remember we sorted out my jewelry. Not that

– it wasn’t my good jewelry. It was my cheaper jewelry. And she brought little bags to put them in as we sorted them out . But I don’t remember giving her any. Q Okay. A I don’t think she asked for any. Q Did she ask for anything el se from your house, or did you give her any other gifts? A I don’t remember giving h er anything. Mary recalled the watch, when and from whom s he received it, and the sentimental
value it had . From this, a jury could reasonably infer that Mary would not give this watch away, particularly not to someone she had known only casually for a few months. Gonzalez also made statements from which a jury could reasonably infer that she lacked credibility. She told Mary that she was a doctor when she was not. According to Burleson, Gonzalez lied to her about the source of the watch. Burleson testified that establishing ownership is one of the first things she does when dealing with a prospective seller. Gonzalez did not provide the jury with any explanation to why Burleson would

8 State v. Salzman , 186 Wash. 44, 47, 56 P.2d 1005 (1936).No. 79411

- 6

- I/ 6

6

falsely testify . A jury could reasonably infer that Gonzalez li ed to Burleson and that this provided evidence of her guilty knowledge. Gonzalez attacks Mary’s credibility, pointing to her dement ia and inability to recall things. She made this argument to the jury , but the jury chose to believe Mary and not Gonzalez. An appellate co urt defers to a jury’s decision about witness credibility and does not reweigh the evidence. Reduced to its essential premise, Gonzalez’s argument asks this court to decide that no rational juror could believe Mary when she testified that she did not give her watch to Gonzalez. We disagree and affirm the conviction. CONCLUSION We affirm. The record contains sufficient evidence for a jury to f ind the essential elements of trafficking in stolen property in the first degree beyond a reasona ble doubt

.

WE CONCUR: