### FILED SEPT 4, 2014 In the Office ofthe Clerk ofCourt W A State Court ofAppeals, Division III

INTHE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DNISIONTHREE STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) ) No. 31359-0-III Respondent, ) ) 

### v. ) ) JEROME 

### L. PLEASANT, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) Appellant. ) KORSMO, J.
- Jerome Pleasant appeals his second degree theft conviction, raising two challenges to the sole evidence ofvaluation offered attrial. We agree that the evidencewas improperly admitted and therefore reverse the conviction andremand for a
newtrial. FACTS Mr. Pleasantwore an ankle bracelet as a condition ofcommunity custody for an unrelated crime. The bracelet was equipped with a GPS tracking device to monitorMr. Pleasant's movement. At somepoint, 

### Mr. Pleasanttookthe ankle bracelet offand "lost" it. His community corrections officer learned aboutthe missing ankle bracelet andNo. 31359·0·111 

### State v. 

### Pleasant
arrested Mr. Pleasant for violating the terms ofhis community custody. Due to the loss ofthe ankle bracelet, Mr. Pleasantwas charged with second degree theft. Attrial, the State sought to prove the value ofthe bracelet through the testimony of
a corrections officer. The officer had exchanged e·mails with the Washington Association ofSheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC), which supplies the Department ofCorrections with GPS tracking devices. Based on these e·mail communications, the officer attempted to testify that according to the vendor the value ofthe bracelet was $1,400. Defense counsel objected to the testimony on hearsay grounds. The State then attempted to introduce the e·mail that the corrections officer had received from WASPC detailing the unit cost. Defense counsel again objected, this time on confrontation clause and hearsay grounds. The State argued that the e·mail was an admissible business record. The court overruled the objections. Based onthe officer's testimony, thejury found Mr. Pleasant guilty. Mr. Pleasant thereafter timely appealed to this court. ANALYSIS We review a trial court's evidentiary rulings for abuse ofdiscretion. 

### State v. 

### Guloy, 104 Wn.2d 412,429·30, 705 P.2d 1182 (1985). Discretion is abused when it is based on untenable grounds orreasons. 

### State ex reI. Carroll v. 

### Junker, 79 Wn.2d 12,26, 482 P.2d 775 (1971). "Ifthe trial court's ruling is based on an erroneous view ofthe law

2No. 31359-0-111 

### State v. 

### Pleasant

or involves application ofan incorrect legal analysis, it necessarily abuses its discretion." 

### Dix v. leT

### Group, Inc., 160 Wn.2d 826,833, 161 P.3d 1016 (2007). RCW 5.45.020 governs the admissibility ofbusiness records in Washington. This statute permits admission ofbusiness records "ifthe custodian or other qualified witness testifies to its identity and the mode ofits preparation, and ifit was made in the regular
course ofbusiness, at or near the time ofthe act, condition orevent, and if, inthe opinion ofthe court, the sources ofinformation, method and time ofpreparation were such as to justify its admission." RCW 5.45.020. In the present case, the State failed to establish the corrections officer's status as the record custodian or as an "otherqualified witness" regarding the valuation record. Furthermore, the officer did not, and could, testify to the document's mode ofpreparation. Hetherefore could not establish the proper foundation for admitting a business record. Because the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard to the admission ofthe record, it abused its discretion. The error is not harmless because the e-mail constituted the State's entire evidence with respect to value. Accordingly, we reverse the conviction andneed not address Mr. Pleasant's argument concerning his offender score. 

# I I I 3No. 31359-0-111 State v. Pleasant
Reversed and remanded for a newtrial. A majority ofthe panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuantto RCW 2.06.040.

I fKorsmo, 

### J. WE CONCUR:

Brown, A
..J.

4