Opinion ID: 2629763
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Definition Statutes and Unanimity

Text: Definition statutes do not create additional alternative means of committing an offense. State v. Laico, 97 Wash.App. 759, 763, 987 P.2d 638 (1999) (citing State v. Strohm, 75 Wash.App. 301, 309, 879 P.2d 962 (1994), review denied, 126 Wash.2d 1002, 891 P.2d 37 (1995)). See also State v. Marko, 107 Wash.App. 215, 220, 27 P.3d 228,(2001) (the definitions of threat do not create alternative elements to the crime of intimidating a witness); State v. Garvin, 28 Wash.App. 82, 86, 621 P.2d 215 (1980) (the definitions of threat, for purposes of the extortion statute, do not create alternative elements to the crime but merely define an element of the crime), review denied, 95 Wash.2d 1017 (1981). But see State v. Stephenson, 89 Wash.App. 217, 222 n. 1, 948 P.2d 1321 (1997) (describing RCW 9A.56.020 and former RCW 9A.56.010(7) as proscribing four alternative means of theft: (1) by taking; (2) by embezzlement; (3) by color or aid of deception; and (4) appropriating lost or misdelivered property or services). There is no requirement that the jurors agree on the facts supporting the alternative means. Strohm, 75 Wash.App. at 309, 879 P.2d 962. In State v. Laico , the defendant argued that the three definitions of great bodily harm create three alternative means for committing the offense. Division One of the Court of Appeals disagreed and held that the definition of `great bodily harm' contained in RCW 9A.04.110(4)(c) is merely definitional and does not create alternative means of committing the crime of assault in the first degree. 97 Wash.App. at 760, 987 P.2d 638. The court therefore concluded that jury unanimity with respect to the existence of great bodily harm did not require unanimity as to the type of great bodily harm. Id. In the broader context of aggravating circumstances to a first degree murder charge, this court has held that the jury need not be unanimous as to alternative ways to satisfy each of the alternative aggravating circumstances. In re Pers. Restraint of Jeffries, 110 Wash.2d 326, 339, 752 P.2d 1338 (1988). In that case, this court noted that the defendant's `means within means' argument raises the spectre of a myriad of instructions and verdict forms whenever a criminal statute contains several instances of use of the word `or.' Id. The theft statutes are structured differently than other crimes. With assault, for instance, the alternative means of the crime are provided in the statutes delineating the degrees of assault. See RCW 9A.36.011.031. The statutes for arson, kidnapping, and rape are similarly structured. See RCW 9A.48.020, 9A.40.020, 9A.44.040. Moreover, these statutes define the crimes within the statutes delineating the degrees. Rape in the first degree, for example, provides that [a] person is guilty of rape ... when such person engages in sexual intercourse with another person by forcible compulsion where the perpetrator [uses one or more of the listed alternative means]. RCW 9A.44.040 (emphasis added). Thus, it is unnecessary to reference a second statute for the definition of rape. Theft is different. The statutes describing the degrees of theft do not provide alternative means of committing the crime, nor do they define the crime. Rather, the crime of theft is defined in terms of the alternative means of commission, in a statute separate from those defining the degrees of theft. Compare RCW 9A.56.020 and 9A.56.030-.050. Linehan is correct that theft is an alternative means crime. See State v. Joy, 121 Wash.2d 333, 339, 851 P.2d 654 (1993). However, he is incorrect insofar as he claims that theft by embezzlement, contained in former RCW 9A.56.010(7)(b), is one of those alternative means. Linehan appears to interpret the theft statute as strictly equating exerts unauthorized control with theft by embezzlement. However, Linehan has misconstrued the theft statute by interpreting the general definition statute for the Theft and Robbery chapter of the code, RCW 9A.56.010, as creating additional alternative means of committing theft. Former RCW 9A.56.010(7) defines mere terms, while RCW 9A.56.020(1)(a) defines the crime of theft in terms of alternative means, here, wrongfully obtain and exert unauthorized control. RCW 9A.56.020 is therefore different in kind from those definition statutes that merely elaborate upon various terms or words. Thus, what is referred to as theft by embezzlement in former RCW 9A.56.010(7)(b) is not an additional means of committing theft. Rather, it is one way to define the alternative means of theft by wrongfully obtain[ing] or exert[ing] unauthorized control in RCW 9A.56.020(1)(a). The Court of Appeals has been inconsistent in its analysis of theft by embezzlement and its discussions of the alternative means of theft. In State v. Stephenson , Division Two wrote that RCW 9A.56.020, combined with former 9A.56.010(7), proscribes four alternative means of committing theft. 89 Wash.App. at 222, 948 P.2d 1321. In a footnote, the court described those four alternatives as theft by (1) taking; (2) embezzlement; (3) color or aid of deception; and (4) appropriation of lost or misdelivered property of services. Id. at 222 n. 1, 948 P.2d 1321. The footnote continued to specify that means (1) and (2) were found in former RCW 9A.56.010(7), while means (3) and (4) were found in 9A.56.020(1)(b). Id. (citing State v. Vargas, 37 Wash.App. 780, 782, 683 P.2d 234 (1984)). In the text of the opinion, immediately following the footnote, the court wrote, [t]he jury instructions here set forth two of these: (1) wrongfully obtaining or exerting unauthorized control over money, property or services and (2) by color or aid of deception, obtaining control over money or property or services. Id. at 222, 948 P.2d 1321. This commingling of terms, both statutory and common, is problematic because common terms, such as theft by embezzlement and theft by taking, are not the language of the theft statutes. Both Linehan's and the Stephenson court's interpretation is contrary to the rule that definition statutes do not create additional alternative means. This interpretation has not only led to confusion as to what the alternative means of theft actually are, but has also given rise to confusion on the issue of jury unanimity in theft cases. State v. Vargas , a Division One Court of Appeals case, is often cited for its statement that the theft statutes, when taken together, set out four distinct types of theft: theft by taking, embezzlement, theft by deception, and appropriation of lost or misdelivered property. 37 Wash.App. at 782, 683 P.2d 234, cited in State v. Ager, 128 Wash.2d 85, 91, 904 P.2d 715 (1995). The Vargas opinion clarified that `wrongfully obtains' or `exerts unauthorized control' is defined to include both theft by taking and embezzlement. Vargas, 37 Wash.App. at 781, 683 P.2d 234 (emphasis added). Both Stephenson and Linehan [2] appear to have interpreted Vargas as stating that the four types of theft are synonymous with the alternative means of theft. To the extent Vargas can be read to endorse that view, we disagree. We hold that the definitions provided in RCW 9A.56.010 do not create additional alternative means of theft. Therefore, under an alternative means analysis of this case, the jury must be unanimous as to whether Linehan committed theft by wrongfully obtaining, exerting unauthorized control, or obtaining the money by color and aid of deception. Unanimity is not required if there is substantial evidence supporting each of these alternative means. Based on the foregoing analysis, it follows that jury unanimity as to wrongfully obtains and exerts unauthorized control does not require unanimity as to whether Linehan embezzled the money pursuant to former RCW 9A.56.010(7)(b) or took the property or services of another pursuant to subsection (7)(a). See Laico, 97 Wash.App. 759, 987 P.2d 638; former RCW 9A.56.010(7)(a), (b). The jury need not be unanimous as to any of the definitions nor must substantial evidence support each definition. There is no requirement that the jury unanimously agree that Linehan's conduct satisfies the definition in subsection (7)(b), commonly referred to as theft by embezzlement, or that there be substantial evidence of theft by embezzlement.