# 2fl\i,KOnO ^8:24

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, Appellant,

v. STEVEN WILLIAM STINE, Respondent. DIVISION ONE No. 71332-9-1 UNPUBLISHED OPINION
FILED: November 10, 2014 Dwyer, J. — In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency ofthe evidence, we view the evidence inthe light mostfavorable to the State. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979). Here, 

### Steven Stine challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to supportthe jury's verdict that he committed one count ofassault inthe third degree. Finding the 

### record replete with evidence in support ofthe verdict, we affirm.


### The due process clauses of the federal and state constitutions require that 

### the State prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 476-77, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2000); U.S. Const, amend. XIV; Wash. Const, art. I, § 3. "[T]he critical inquiry on 

### review of the sufficiency ofthe evidence to support a criminal conviction must be
... to determine whether the record evidence could reasonably support aNo. 71332-9-1/2 

### finding of guiltbeyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson. 443 U.S. at 318. "[T]he relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence inthe light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier offact could have found the essential elements ofthe crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson, 443 U.S.
at 319.A claim of insufficiency admits the truth ofthe State's evidence and all reasonable inferences from that evidence. State v. Kintz, 169 Wn.2d 537, 551, 238 P.3d 470 (2010). Circumstantial evidence and direct evidence can be 

### equally reliable. State v. Delmarter. 94 Wn.2d 634, 638, 618 P.2d 99 (1980). 

### We deferto thejury on questions of conflictingtestimony, credibility ofwitnesses, and the persuasiveness of the evidence. State v. Killingsworth, 166 Wn. App. 283, 287, 269 P.3d 1064 (2012). RCW 9A.36.031(1)(g) provides: 

### (1)A person is guilty ofassault in the thirddegree if he or she, under circumstances not amounting to assault inthe first or second 

### degree: . . . (g)Assaults a lawenforcement officer or other employee of a lawenforcement agency who was performing his or her official duties at the time ofthe assault. Therefore, in orderto convict Stine of assault inthe third degree pursuant 

### to RCW 9A.36.031(1)(g), the jurywas required to find that the State proved 

### beyond a reasonable doubt that Stine intentionally assaulted a lawenforcement officer. The jurywas instructed on the following definitions ofassault and intention: "An assault is an intentional touching or striking ofanother person, that 

### isharmful oroffensive, regardless of whether any physical injury is done to theNo. 71332-9-1/3 

### person," and "A person acts with intent or intentionally when acting withthe objective or purpose to accomplish a result that constitutes a crime." II The evidence adduced at trial included the following: On the evening of October 3, 2013, at around 7:30 p.m., Lynnwood Police Officer Donald Blakely
was driving through an area of Lynnwood looking for a bicycle that had been reported stolen. Abouttwo blocks from where Blakely took the initialreport, he


### saw Stine walking a bicycle along the sidewalk. Blakely, who was infull uniform at the time, pulled his patrol car up to Stine and turned his spotlight on him. 

### Blakelymade contactwith Stine. Stine was slow to comply with Blakely's commands and acted in a way that made Blakelyconcerned for his own safety. 

### As a result, Blakely told Stine to lie on the ground. Stine did notcomply. After telling Stine to lie on the ground several times withoutsuccess, Blakely 

### approached Stine and grabbed his hand. Blakely told Stine that he was under

arrest. 

### When Blakelygrabbed Stine's hand, Stine pulled away. Blakely was unable to handcuffStine because he kept pulling away. Blakelythen took Stine 

### to the ground, with Stine lying face-forward and Blakely on top ofhim. Stine 

### continued to struggle and his arms flailed about, preventing the officerfrom taking hold of both of his arms. Stine then quickly spun around and onto his back, striking the officer in the face with either his elbow or his fist as he spun toward him. 

### Blakelytestified that the interaction changed at that point. It "wentfrom
-3-No. 71332-9-1/4 

### passive resisting or resisting arrest to this is a fight." Stine punched Blakely in the face and chest, and Blakely struck Stine in the face more than once. Blakely testified both that Stine's arms were "just flailing around," and that Stine was "trying to strike me." He described that Stine's fists were clenched and his arms were moving in a striking motion. Lynnwood Police OfficerWilliam Koonce soon arrived and took the place of a civilian who had stopped to help Blakely. Koonce noted that Stine was struggling and flailing around, trying to break free. He testified that "[i]t looked like [Stine] was trying to maybe strike at them to get them to let go." Finally, the officers managed to handcuff Stine with his hands behind his 

### back. After Stine was placed under arrest, Koonce advised him of his 

### constitutional rights. Stine waived his rights. When Koonce asked himaboutthe fight, Stine responded that he was "just wrestling turtle style." As a result ofthe interaction with Stine, Blakely sustained a cut and 

### scrape to hislower lip and cuts orscrapes to a number of hisfingers.1 Viewed inthe light most favorable to the State, sufficient evidence was 

### presented for a rationaltrier of fact tofind that Stine acted intentionally in 

### assaulting Blakely, whom he knew to be a policeofficer. Blakely testified that Stine was not justflailing about without intention but, rather, was trying to strike him. Blakely described that Stine's fists were clenched and that he moved his
arms in a striking motion as Stine punched Blakely in the face and chest.
1Photographs oftheinjuries, taken thatnight, wereadmitted into evidenceandpublished to thejury. -4-No. 71332-9-1/5 

### Koonce's testimony corroborated Blakely's account ofevents. Koonce testified 

### that it looked as ifStine was trying to strike at Blakely so that Blakely would let go of him. The jurywas entitled to credit the officers' testimony. Moreover, Stine's statementthat he was "just wrestling turtle style" also indicates that Stine was fighting Blakely intentionally. The evidence was sufficient for a rational trier offact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Stine intentionally assaulted law enforcement officer Blakely. Stine's insufficiency ofthe evidence claim fails. Affirmed.

We concur:



# )

f\ ^U>^N| ^j

5-