Opinion ID: 1379698
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of appellate review of convictions

Text: [1] In Seattle v. Slack, 113 Wn.2d 850, 784 P.2d 494 (1989), this court set forth the standard of appellate review of convictions. In Slack we stated: Inquiring into the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction does not require the reviewing court to determine whether it believes the evidence at trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216, 221, 616 P.2d 628 (1980). Instead, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Green, at 221. 113 Wn.2d at 859. The present case consists of separate incidents. The specific facts of each case follow:
On April 21, 1989, Betty Fears, the project manager of the Lakeshore Village Apartments, testified that she received a call from her answering service [MRS. FEARS]: ... that there were [ sic ] a large group of people gathered by one of the buildings, we called the police. She also related that We have a problem at Lakeshore with drugs and gang activity and large groups tend to make us think that something is going on that we need to be  to have some action taken on. Little Fact-Finding Hearing, at 4-5 (June 16, 1989). She called the police and, at approximately 9:18 p.m., Seattle Police Officer S.M. Colman and his partner were dispatched to the 9000 block of 53rd South to investigate the report. Upon arrival, Colman saw more than 20 juveniles assembled in the intersection between Fisher Place and 9053 53rd South. The juveniles immediately broke and ran in several directions. Colman exited his patrol car, yelled Stop, police, and began pursuing the individuals on foot. Little Fact-Finding Hearing, at 12 (June 16, 1989). As Colman came around the corner of one of the buildings, he saw six or eight juveniles climbing the chain link fence. At that time he came alongside of Craig Little and another person walking through the complex. As Colman passed, Little's companion ran off to the left and Little then ran to the right. Colman then peeled off from [his] initial pursuit of the people over the fence and yelled for Little to stop as he chased Little into a nearby building. Little attempted to shut the door, but Colman stuck his nightstick in the door jamb. Little Fact-Finding Hearing, at 13 (June 16, 1989). Little attempted to shut the door several times, but Colman's nightstick prevented Little from doing so. Colman eventually opened the door, grabbed Little and arrested him for obstructing a police officer. Little was charged by information with one count of criminal trespass, RCW 9A.52.070, and one count of obstructing a public servant, RCW 9A.76.020(3). Judge Carmen Otero, finding Little guilty on both counts, analyzed as follows: THE COURT: The Court makes the following findings on the Obstruction. The Officer was dressed in his uniform. He was dispatched. He was on duty. The Court finds that the Respondent did see the Officer. That he was aware, and made aware, that the Officer told him to stop. That he not only refused to stop, he had already taken off before he was told to stop. That he ran into a building. That he purposely tried to slam the door on the Officer. The Officer had his nightstick in the door and he kept trying to push the door until finally the Officer was able to open the door and arrest the Respondent for Obstructing. Although I am not a person who goes along with some of the Obstructing charges that officers bring, I believe this certainly does fall within the Statute. The Officer was working. That he was on duty. He was obviously, an officer. The Respondent was aware that he was an officer. And that he did obstruct him in the line of duty. The Court then moves onto the next charge. And that is the Trespass. The Court can only go on the evidence presented here in court. And the Court finds that any evidence, or any argument about drugs is just not relevant to this case. There was no evidence of drugs. The only issue is whether the Respondent was on the property and whether he had a lawful right to be on the property. The Court finds that upon seeing the Officer, even before the Officer talked to him, he immediately ran. Not only did he run away from the Officer, he ran into the building, tried to force the door closed, preventing the Officer to come into the building. There were signs, signs that indicated in a clear language that there was to be no loitering. And the Respondent was on the property and loitering. The Court finds that his actions, plus the signs is sufficient for this Court to find that he was in fact trespassing. Little Fact-Finding Hearing, at 29, 30, 31.
On the afternoon of January 23, 1989, Officers Kenneth Saucier and J.T. Rodgers were conducting a criminal trespass check at the Lakeshore Village Apartment complex. When they arrived at the property, the officers saw a group of 10 or more youths standing around a car in the parking lot. Both officers testified that they were generally familiar with the residents of the complex and that they did not recognize any of the youths as being residents. The officers approached the group to determine whether they lived at the complex or whether they were trespassers. As the officers moved toward the group, the youths started to disperse. Saucier exited the patrol car and told the group to stop and come toward the car. Jason Davis, Walter Hayden and another youth ran. Saucier pursued Davis on foot while Rodgers pursued the other two in the patrol car. After a brief chase, the officers arrested the youths. Officer J.T. Rodgers testified as to identifying the defendants when he first arrived and subsequent to their arrest by Officer Saucier. Q. At what point did you see their faces? A. At the initial contact. Q. Which was? A. Just before they started to run from us at the beginning of the whole incident. Q. At what point did you see their faces again? A. When my partner had them all on the ground, or I believe they were on the ground. When I had gotten out of my patrol car, just after I had lost sight of the two, walked around the corner  or actually ran looking for my partner. And that's when I saw them again. And they were somewhat in custody. Q. Approximately how long  how much time elapsed, would you say, between the time of the initial contact and the point at which they were apprehended? A. Somewhere between 60 to 90 seconds. .... Q. About how many second[s] was it between the time that you first saw the group of people around the car and the group started to disperse? A. It would probably be, I'd say, around 5 seconds. Q. Now, is it your testimony that in this 5 seconds, you were able to determine that none of the people there belonged there in the sense of being residents there? A. As they started loosening up to disperse, it wasn't like they were all taking off. We got very close to them before any of them actually ran. So they were still close enough so I could visually scan who was there. Hayden/Davis Fact-Finding Hearing, at 40, 41, 49 (May 8, 1989). Davis and Hayden were both charged by information with one count of obstructing a public servant in violation of RCW 9A.76.020(3). After a fact-finding hearing Judge Norman Quinn found both individuals guilty as charged and sentenced them within the standard range. Davis and Hayden appealed. In each case, the police detained or sought to detain the appellants to determine whether they were trespassing on the grounds of the apartment complex. Each juvenile appealed his conviction and challenged the propriety of his initial stop or the police order to stop. Appellants argued that the actions of the police exceeded the sanction of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 L.Ed.2d 889, 88 S.Ct. 1868 (1968) and, therefore, violated their rights under the Fourth Amendment and article 1, section 7 of the state constitution.