FILED 


FEB 24, 2015 


In the Office of the Clerk of Court 


WA State Court of Appeals, Division III 


IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 


DIVISION THREE 


STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) 

) No. 31889-3-III 

Respondent, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

WILLIAM MICHAEL LOBIE, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION 

) 

Appellant. ) 

FEARING, J. - A jury found William Lobie guilty ofpossession of a controlled 

substance, second degree possession of stolen property, and third degree theft. On 

appeal, Lobie argues insufficient evidence supports his conviction for third degree theft. 

We disagree and affirm the conviction. 

FACTS 

On February 1,2013, someone purloined Maria Arceo Andreade's purse from her 

vehicle. 

On February 2, 2013, William Lobie shopped at the Moses Lake Walmart. 
No. 31889-3-111 

State v. Lobie 

Walmart loss prevention employee Eric Paulson monitored Lobie through the store's 

extensive video surveillance system. Paulson espied Lobie hide an ink cartridge and a 

ball cap inside his jacket. Paulson also saw Lobie switch the price tag on a planner. 

William Lobie purchased the planner, but not the ink cartridge or ball cap. He 

then advanced toward the store's exit. Walmart employee Eric Paulson accosted Lobie in 

the store's vestibule. Paulson asked Lobie to wait for police to arrive, and Lobie 

complied. 

Moses Lake Police Officer Juan Rodriguez journeyed to the Walmart. William 

Lobie admitted to Officer Rodriguez that he stole ink cartridges and a ball cap. Lobie 

also confessed to changing the price sticker on the planner to procure a cheaper price. 

Officer Rodriguez searched Lobie's clothing. Rodriguez unearthed a ball cap in Lobie's 

sleeve, a baggy ofmethamphetamine in his pants' front coin pocket, and credit and debit 

cards from Maria Arceo Andreade's missing purse. 

PROCEDURE 

The State of Washington charged William Lobie with possession of 

methamphetamine, possession of stolen property in the second degree, and theft in the 

third degree. The latter charge addressed the taking of the planner, ink cartridges, and 

cap. During trial, Lobie testified that the pants he wore in Walmart on February 2, 

belonged to a roommate. He testified that he found Andreade's purse on the side of the 

road, with its contents strewn about, and hoped to return the purse and cards to their 

2 

No. 31889-3-111 

State v. Lobie 

owner for a reward. Lobie testified that he went to Walmart's vestibule to meet his 

girlfriend, who he hoped would pay to purchase the ink cartridges and ball cap. Lobie 

admitted to a stupid mistake of switching the price tag on the planner. 

A Grant County jury found Lobie guilty on all three charges. 

LAW AND ANALYS1S 

On appeal, William Lobie challenges the sufficiency of evidence to convict him of 

third degree theft. He does not challenge his two other convictions. 

Due process requires the State to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, every element 

of the crime charged. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358,364,90 S. Ct. 1068,25 L. Ed. 2d 368 

(1970). When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his 

conviction, he admits the truth of the State's evidence and all inferences that reasonably 

may be drawn from the evidence. State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192,201,829 P.2d 1068 

(1992). This court views the evidence in the glow most favorable to the State and asks 

whether any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a 

reasonable doubt. State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216, 220-21, 616 P .2d 628 (1980). 

The State charged William Lobie with theft in the third degree in violation of 

RCW 9A.56.050. The statute provides in relevant part: 

(1) A person is guilty of theft in the third degree ifhe or she 

commits theft ofproperty or services which (a) does not exceed seven 

hundred fifty dollars in value .... 

(2) Theft in the third degree is a gross misdemeanor. 

3 

No. 31889-3-III 

State v. Lobie 

RCW 9A.56.020 defines theft as: 

(1) "Theft" means: 

(a) To 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; or 

(b) By color or aid of deception to obtain control over the property 

or services ofanother or the value thereof, with intent to deprive him or her 

of such property or services; or 

(c) To appropriate lost or misdelivered property or services of 

another, or the value thereof, with intent to deprive him or her ofsuch 

property or services. 

William Lobie forwards the corpus delicti rule and claims that State v. DuBois, 79 

Wn. App. 605, 904 P.2d 308 (1995) controls his challenge to the sufficiency of evidence 

for his third degree theft conviction. Black's Law Dictionary 419 (lOth ed. 2014) defines 

"corpus delicti" as: "the simple principle that a crime must be proved to have occurred 

before anyone can be convicted for having committed it." In the Anglo-American legal 

system, the concept of corpus delicti divides into several related and unrelated principles. 

First, an accused's out-of-court confession, alone, is insufficient evidence to prove his or 

her guilt ,beyond reasonable doubt. Second, without first showing independent 

corroboration that a crime happened, the prosecution may not introduce evidence of an 

accused's statement. Third, an accused cannot be convicted solely on the testimony of an 

accomplice. Fourth, when a person disappears and cannot be contacted, a "body" of 

evidentiary items, including physical, demonstrative, and testimonial evidence, must be 

obtained to establish that the missing individual has indeed been murdered before a 

4 

I 


I 

No. 31889-3-III 

State v. Lobie 

suspect can be charged with homicide. William Lobie relies on the first principle. 

Extrajudicial admissions and confessions are inadmissible unless the State submits 

independent proof of the corpus delicti. State v. DuBois, 79 Wn. App. at 609; State v. 

Solomon, 73 Wn. App. 724, 727,870 P.2d 1019. On a corpus delicti challenge, a court 

must look to the independent evidence to corroborate an admission, before a jury may 

consider the acknowledgement. Proof ofthe corpus delicti generally requires two 

elements (1) a specific injury or loss and (2) someone's criminal act as the cause of the 

injury or loss. State v. Mason, 31 Wn. App. 41, 48,639 P.2d 800 (1982). The 

independent evidence need not establish the corpus delicti beyond a reasonable doubt or 

even by a preponderance; rather, the evidence is sufficient if it prima facie establishes the 

corpus delicti. State v. DuBois, 79 Wn. App. at 609. "Prima facie" in this context means 

evidence of sufficient circumstances which would support a logical and reasonable 

inference of the facts sought to be proved. Bremerton v. Corbett, 106 Wn.2d 569, 578­

79, 723 P.2d 1135 (1986). In assessing the sufficiency ofthe proof of corpus delicti, the 

reviewing court views the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light 

most favorable to the State. State v. Smith, 115 Wn.2d 775, 782 n.l, 801 P.2d 975 

(1990). Our Supreme Court has declined to abandon the corpus delicti rule in favor of 

the federal corroboration rule, which requires only that the evidence tend to establish the 

trustworthiness of the confession. State v. Smith, 115 Wn.2d at 784 n.2. 

In State v. DuBois, this court reversed Nicole Bustamante's conviction for third 

5 

No. 31889-3-111 

State v. Lobie 

degree theft based on Washington's corpus delicti rule. Bustamante walked through the 

check stand of a grocery store, but did not purchase cigarettes. The next customer told 

the cashier that she saw Bustamante put an object in her pocket. The cashier did not see 

Bustamante's action and could not see the cigarette rack from his check stand. The 

cashier commandeered Bustamante outside the store and asked what she placed in her 

pocket. Bustamante removed a pack of cigarettes from her pocket and exclaimed, "I'm 

sorry; I'll pay double." DuBois, 79 Wn. App. at 608. The informant did not testify at 

trial. 

The DuBois court addressed the admissibility ofNicole Bustamante's admission. 

Applying the corpus delicti rule, the court reasoned that the evidence independent of 

Bustamante's admission and confession only showed that Bustamante did not purchase 

any cigarettes at the store and that the cashier recovered a pack of cigarettes from her 

shortly after she left the store. The cashier did not observe Bustamante remove the 

package of cigarettes from the rack or observe any suspicious activity. The State 

presented no evidence of distinctive packaging or a price tag that could tie the cigarette 

pack to the store. The only independent evidence suggesting a criminal act was the 

customer's statement to the cashier that she saw Bustamante place something in her 

pocket, and this evidence was barred as hearsay. The court ruled the evidence 

insufficient to support Bustamante's conviction for third degree theft. 

Relying on Dubois, William Lobie argues that the State of Washington failed to 

6 

No. 31889-3-III 

State v. Lobie 

present any evidence to connect the ink, cap, or planner found on his person to Walmart. 

DuBois, however, lies far from this appeal on any spectrum of facts. Walmart's Eric 

Paulson saw Lobie hide the ink and cap in his jacket and change the price sticker on the 

planner. Subsequent evidence of distinctive packaging or a price tag was unnecessary to 

show that the items were the property of Walmart, because Paulson saw Lobie secrete the 

items while inside Walmart. 

On a sufficiency ofthe evidence challenge, this reviewing court may consider an 

admission properly before the jury. State v. Brockob, 159 Wn.2d 311, 339, 150 P.3d 59 

(2006). Thus, we may consider Lobie's admission that he switched the price tag to a 

lower price and his admission that he exited to Walmart's vestibule without paying for 

the ink and cap. A rational jury could rely on Eric Paulson's, Officer Juan Rodriguez's, 

and William Lobie's testimony to find that Lobie exerted unauthorized control over the 

ink, cap, and planner, and that these items were the property of Walmart. Sufficient 

evidence supports the jury's verdict. 

CONCLUSION 

We affirm William Lobie's conviction for third degree theft. 

7 

No. 31889-3-II1 

State v. Lobie 

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. 

WE CONCUR: 

~~ 

~~() 

8