IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON, 

### ) ) No. 78915-5-I Respondent, 

### ) DIVISION ONE v. JAMES MICHAEL JACKSON, 

### ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION 

### ) Appellant. __________________________________) FILED: March 9, 2020 SMITH, J. —James Jackson appeals his conviction for attempting to elude

a pursuing police vehicle. He contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he knew the vehicle in question was a police vehicle. We disagree and affirm. FACTS In July 2018, the State charged Jackson by amended information with one count of attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle. At Jackson’s trial, Officer Anatoliy Kravchun ofthe Everett Police Department testified that on the afternoon of June 13, 2017, he was driving his patrol car, a gray, unmarked Ford Crown Victoria. His brother, Oleg Kravchun, also an Everett police officer, was in the front passenger seat. Both officers were wearing their uniforms, which OfficerAnatoliy1 testified have yellow city of Everett police patches on the

1 Because the officers share a common last name, we referto them by theirfirst names for clarity.No. 78915-5-112

shoulders and vests with “Police” written on the back and front. OfficerAnatoliy testified that he and Officer Oleg were driving along West Casino Road and then pulled into the parking lot ofan AM/PM store. As they pulled in, they stopped for
a man, later identified as Jackson, so that he could walk in front ofthe patrol car. Officer Oleg latertestified that Jackson glanced at him as he walked in front of the car. Officer Oleg testified that afterJackson passed in front ofthe patrol car, OfficerAnatoliy continued driving and backed the car into a driveway nearthe AM/PM building. Officer Oleg then sawJackson begin pumping gas into a Ford Expedition. OfficerOleg testified thatthe distance between them was about40 feet and that he was watching Jackson through the passenger side window, i.e., that Jackson was relatively perpendicularto the patrol car. Officer Oleg testified that Jackson was looking at the unmarked patrol car and watching Officer Oleg. Meanwhile, Officer Oleg ran the license plate ofthe Expedition and discovered that it had been reported stolen. He and OfficerAnatoliythen discussed howto contact Jackson in a waythatwould keep him from fleeing. OfficerAnatoliytestified that because Jackson had finished pumping gas and had gotten into the Expedition, the officers’ strategy was to 

### tryto box the Expedition in atthe gas pump. He testified that he drove toward the Expedition, activated the lights in the front and the backwindows of his patrol car, and pulled toward the front ofthe Expedition. Officer Oleg also testified thatthe lights on the patrol carwere activated, and he testified that he could see them blinking. As OfficerAnatoliy pulled toward the Expedition atthe gas pump, he could see

2No. 78915-5-1/3

Jackson in the driver’s seat and a woman in the front passenger seat. He began to stop when his bumperwas a few inches awayfrom the Expedition. OfficerAnatoliy testified that atthat point, Jackson was looking directly at him, and he saw Jackson reach forthe Expedition’s shifter and move it down slightly. The Expedition then began to back up. OfficerAnatoliy testified that he then drove forward, butthe Expedition backed up fasterthan OfficerAnatoliy moved forward, thus creating some distance between the two cars. The Expedition eventually stopped. OfficerAnatoliy testified that he then saw Jackson’s hand on the shifter again and saw it go down “a couple more clicks.” He testified thatthe Expedition then accelerated quickly forward and hit the patrol car, pushing it backward. OfficerAnatollytestified that Jackson then drove the Expedition pastthe patrol car, out onto Casino Road. A pursuitfollowed, but OfficerAnatoliy terminated it after approximatelythree to five miles. He did not have subsequent contact with Jackson that day but arrested him the following month after noticing him walking along a street in Everett. Thejuryfound Jackson guilty ofattempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle.2 Jackson appeals. ANALYSIS Jackson contends that his conviction must be reversed because the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that he knew that OfficerAnatoliy’s

2 Thejury also found Jackson guilty ofone count ofthird degree assault and acquitted Jackson of one count of possession of a stolen vehicle. Those additional charges are not at issue in this appeal. 3No. 78915-5-1/4

unmarked patrol carwas a police vehicle. We disagree. To satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process guarantee, the State “bears the burden of proving every element ofevery crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” U.S. CONST. amend. XIV; State v. Chacon, 192 Wn.2d 545, 549, 431 P.3d 477 (2018). When a defendant challenges the sufficiency ofthe evidence presented to meetthis burden, “he orshe admits the truth ofall ofthe State’s evidence.” State v. Cardenas-Flores, 189 Wn.2d 243, 265, 401 P.3d 19 (2017). “In such cases, appellate courts viewthe evidence in the light mostfavorable to the State, drawing reasonable inferences in the State’s favor.” Cardenas-Flores, 189 Wn.2d at 265-66. “Evidence is sufficientto support a guiltyverdict if any rational trier offact, viewing the evidence in the light mostfavorable to the State, could find the elements ofthe charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Cardenas-Flores, 189 Wn.2d at 265. To satisfy its burden to prove that Jackson was guilty of attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle, the State was required to prove, as relevant here, thatJackson knew OfficerAnatoliy’s vehicle was a police vehicle. See State v. Flora, 160 Wn. App. 549, 555, 249 P.3d 188 (2011) (“[T]here can be no attemptto elude unless there is the prerequisite knowledge thatthere is a pursuing police vehicle.”). Here, the evidence was sufficientto support such a finding.Specifically, the incident occurred during daylight hours, and both officers testified thattheywere in uniform. Officer Oleg testified furtherthatJackson glanced at the patrol carwhen he walked in front of it, and that he also watched

4No. 78915-5-1/5

the officers as he pumped gas into the Expedition. Additionally, OfficerAnatoliy testified that he activated the lights in the front and backwindows of his patrol car as he approached Jackson, and Officer Oleg testified that he could see the lights blinking. Finally, OfficerAnatoliy testified that he pulled up so that his bumper wasonly a few inches from the Expedition and that Jackson was looking directly at him.From this evidence, ajury could reasonably inferthat Jackson sawthe officers’ uniforms, that Jackson thus recognized the occupants ofthe patrol car as police officers, and thatthe patrol car’s lights were activated as it approached Jackson atthe gas pump. Accordingly, ajury could also reasonably inferthat Jackson knewthatthe vehicle approaching him atthe gas pump was a police vehicle despite its being unmarked. See State v. Perebeynos, 121 Wn. App. 189, 196, 87 P.3d 1216 (2004) (jury may infer a person’s knowledge ifthat person has information thatwould lead a reasonable person in the same situation to believe that a fact exists), review ciranted and case dismissed, 153 Wn.2d 1002 (2005). And because Jackson argues onlythatthe evidence was insufficient to prove his knowledge, his sufficiency challenge fails. Jackson points outthat OfficerAnatoliy’s patrol carwas an unmarked car without a light bar on the roof, and that OfficerAnatoliy did not use his siren when he attempted to box Jackson in. Jackson also asserts that OfficerAnatoliy “admitted he did not know whetherthe lights were operating”3 and that “[alt least

~ In his brief, Jackson attributed this testimonyto Officer Oleg, but the cited testimonywas from OfficerAnatoliy. 5No. 78915-5-1/6

one ofthe independent witnesses testified he could not remember hearing a siren orseeing lights.” But as discussed, the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom were sufficientfor ajuryto find that Jackson knew OfficerAnatoliy’s vehicle was a police vehicle, regardless ofwhetherthere was a light bar on the rooforwhether OfficerAnatoliy used his siren. Additionally, Jackson mischaracterizes both OfficerAnatoliy’s and the witness’s testimony. Specifically, OfficerAnatoliy testified, in the context ofdescribing the damage to his patrol car, that he did not knowwhetherthe white lights on the front driver’s side corner had been working atthe time ofthe incident. This testimony does not negate a reasonable inference, based on Officer Oleg’s testimonythat he could see the lights in the window ofthe patrol car blinking, thatthose lights were working. And the witness to whom Jackson refers did not testifythat he could not rememberseeing lights; rather, he testified that he could not remember whetherhe saw anyflashing lights. This testimony does not negate the reasonable inference, based on the officers’ testimony, thatthe lights on OfficerAnatolly’s vehicle were activated as they approached Jackson atthe gas station. We affirm. 

# ~L9/.

WE CONCUR: