### FILED FEB 24, 2015 In the Office ofthe Clerk ofCourt WA State CourtofAppeals, 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### v. ) ) WILLIAM MICHAEL LOBIE, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) Appellant.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. - Ajury found William Lobie guilty ofpossession ofa controlled substance, second degreepossession ofstolen 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 OnFebruary 1,2013, someonepurloined Maria Arceo Andreade's purse from her vehicle. OnFebruary 2, 2013, William Lobie shopped attheMosesLake 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 hisjacket. Paulson also saw Lobie switch the price tag on a planner. William Lobie purchased the planner, but not the ink cartridge orball 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 OfficerJuan Rodriguezjourneyed to the Walmart. William Lobie admitted to OfficerRodriguez that he stole ink cartridges and a ball cap. Lobie also confessed to changing the price sticker on the planner to procure a cheaperprice. Officer Rodriguez searched Lobie's clothing. Rodriguez unearthed a ball cap in Lobie's sleeve, a baggy ofmethamphetamine in his pants' front coinpocket, and credit and debit cards from Maria Arceo Andreade's missing purse. PROCEDURE The State ofWashington charged William Lobie with possession of methamphetamine, possession ofstolenproperty in the second degree, and theft in the third degree. The latter charge addressed the taking ofthe planner, ink cartridges, and cap. Duringtrial, Lobie testified that the pants he wore in Walmart on February 2, belongedto a roommate. He testified that he found Andreade'spurse on the side ofthe road, with its contents strewn about, and hoped to return the purse and cards to their 2No. 31889-3-111 State v. Lobie

owner for a reward. Lobie testified that he wentto Walmart's vestibule to meet his girlfriend, who he hoped would pay to purchasethe ink cartridges and ball cap. Lobie admitted to a stupid mistake ofswitchingthe price tag ontheplanner. A Grant Countyjury found Lobie guilty on all three charges. LAW AND ANALYS1S On appeal, William Lobie challenges the sufficiency ofevidence to convicthim of third degree theft. He does not challenge his two other convictions. Dueprocess requires the State toprove, beyond a reasonable doubt, every element ofthe 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 ofthe evidence underlying his conviction, he admits the truth ofthe State's evidence and all inferences that reasonably may be drawn from the evidence. State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192,201,829P.2d 1068 (1992). This courtviews the evidence in the glow most favorable to the State and asks whether any rational trier offact could find the essential elements ofthe crimebeyond 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 relevantpart: (1) A person is guilty oftheft 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.

3No. 31889-3-III State v. Lobie

RCW 9A.56.020 defines theft as: ( 1) "Theft" means: (a) To wrongfully obtain or exert unauthorized control overthe property or services ofanother or the value thereof, with intentto deprive him orher ofsuch property or services; or (b) By color or aid ofdeception to obtain control overthe property or services ofanother orthe value thereof, with intentto deprive him orher ofsuchproperty or services; or (c) To appropriate lost or misdeliveredproperty or services of another, orthe value thereof, with intent to deprive him orher ofsuch property or services. William Lobie forwards the corpus delicti rule and claims thatState v. DuBois, 79 Wn. App. 605, 904 P.2d 308 (1995) controls his challenge to the sufficiency ofevidence for his third degree theft conviction. Black'sLawDictionary419 (lOth ed. 2014) defines "corpus delicti" as: "the simple principle that a crime mustbeproved to have occurred before anyone can be convicted for having committed it." In the Anglo-American legal system, the concept ofcorpus 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 ofan accused's statement. Third, an accused cannot be convicted solely on the testimony ofan accomplice. Fourth, when a person disappears and cannotbe contacted, a "body" of evidentiary items, includingphysical, demonstrative, andtestimonial evidence, must be obtained to establish thatthe 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 independentproofofthe 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 lookto the independent evidence to corroborate an admission, before ajurymay considerthe acknowledgement. Proofofthe corpus delicti generally requires two elements (1) a specific injury or loss and (2) someone's criminal act as the cause ofthe 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 ifit prima facie establishes the corpus delicti. State v. DuBois, 79 Wn. App. at 609. "Prima facie" in this context means evidence ofsufficient circumstances which would support a logical and reasonable inference ofthe facts sought to be proved. Bremerton v. Corbett, 106 Wn.2d 569, 578­ 79, 723 P.2d 1135 (1986). In assessing the sufficiency ofthe proofofcorpus delicti, the reviewing courtviews 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 establishthe trustworthiness ofthe confession. State v. Smith, 115 Wn.2d at 784 n.2. In State v. DuBois, this court reversed Nicole Bustamante's conviction for third 

### 5No. 31889-3-111 State v. Lobie degree theft based on Washington's corpus delicti rule. Bustamante walked through the check stand ofa grocery store, but did notpurchase cigarettes. The next customertold the cashierthat she saw Bustamanteput an object in herpocket. 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 ofcigarettes from herpocket 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 cashierrecovered a pack ofcigarettes from her shortly after she left the store. The cashier did not observe Bustamante remove the package ofcigarettes from the rack orobserve any suspicious activity. The State presented no evidence ofdistinctive packaging ora price tag that couldtie the cigarette pack to the store. The only independent evidence suggesting a criminal act was the customer's statementto 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 ofWashington failed to 6No. 31889-3-III State v. Lobie present any evidence to connectthe ink, cap, orplanner found on his person to Walmart. DuBois, however, lies far from this appeal on any spectrum offacts. Walmart's Eric Paulson saw Lobie hidethe ink and cap in hisjacket and change the price sticker on the planner. Subsequent evidence ofdistinctive packaging ora price tag was unnecessary to show that the items werethe property ofWalmart, 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 thejury. 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 lowerprice and his admission that he exited to Walmart's vestibule withoutpaying for the ink and cap. A rationaljury could rely on Eric Paulson's, OfficerJuan Rodriguez's, and William Lobie'stestimony to find that Lobie exerted unauthorized control overthe ink, cap, and planner, andthat these items were the property ofWalmart. Sufficient evidence supports thejury's verdict. CONCLUSION We affirm William Lobie's conviction for third degree theft.



### 7No. 31889-3-II1 State 

### v. Lobie

A majority ofthe panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, butit will be filed for publicrecord pursuantto RCW 2.06.040.

WE CONCUR:

# ~~**~~()**

8