Court Opinion

ID: 9927966
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-30 16:18:25.176075+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:32:23.053044
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                           JANUARY 30, 2024
                                                       In the Office of the Clerk of Court
                                                      WA State Court of Appeals, Division III

          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
                             DIVISION THREE

STATE OF WASHINGTON,                          )         No. 38963-4-III
                                              )
                     Respondent,              )
                                              )
   v.                                         )         UNPUBLISHED OPINION
                                              )
CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL CRUMP,                    )
                                              )
                     Appellant.               )

        PENNELL, J. — Christopher Michael Crump appeals his conviction for possession

of a stolen motor vehicle. He also challenges the constitutionality of various legal

financial obligations (LFOs) imposed in relation to this and a simultaneous malicious

mischief conviction. We reverse Mr. Crump’s stolen motor vehicle conviction without

prejudice as the State’s charging document failed to recite all elements of the offense.

We reject Mr. Crump’s constitutional challenge to his court-ordered LFOs, but

nevertheless remand so that Mr. Crump may take advantage of recent statutory

amendments that afford relief to indigent defendants.

                                          FACTS

        Christopher Crump was pulled over by police on suspicion of driving a stolen

vehicle and having expired license plate tabs. During the stop, the police confirmed the
No. 38963-4-III
State v. Crump

vehicle was stolen and Mr. Crump was placed under arrest. In a post-arrest search of the

vehicle, police found two hats: a red hat and a black and red New England Patriots hat.

       Mr. Crump was charged with possession of a stolen vehicle and released on

electronic home monitoring. During his pretrial release, Mr. Crump tampered with the

monitoring device, causing damage. He was then charged with two counts of malicious

mischief.

       At trial, Mr. Crump did not dispute he possessed the car or that he damaged the

monitoring device. He claimed he borrowed the car from an unnamed friend and that

he did not know the car was stolen until the police told him.

       The State’s evidence included testimony from a law enforcement officer about

his past interactions with Mr. Crump. The officer stated he had seen Mr. Crump about

a dozen times in the past and Mr. Crump was often wearing a red hat. The State then

sought to elicit testimony from the officer about a Facebook profile photo that depicted

Mr. Crump wearing a red Chicago Bulls hat. Mr. Crump objected to the admission of

the photo, arguing it was irrelevant and would serve only to suggest that he had been the

subject of a prior police investigation. The State argued the photo was relevant to prove

Mr. Crump possessed the car because it showed he wore a hat similar to those found in

the car, thus implying he possessed it “‘as opposed to just, like, maybe he’s just driving

                                             2
No. 38963-4-III
State v. Crump

it on a whim.’” 5 Rep. of Proc. (Mar. 22, 2022) at 288-89. The trial court overruled the

objection and allowed the evidence.

       The jury found Mr. Crump guilty of possessing a stolen motor vehicle, and one

count of second degree malicious mischief. The trial court ordered Mr. Crump to pay

restitution in the amount of the victims’ losses, with $1,001.00 payable to Walla Walla

Court Services for the damaged electronic monitoring equipment and $1,534.50 to the

owner of the stolen vehicle. The court also imposed a $500.00 crime victim penalty

assessment.

       Mr. Crump now appeals.

                                       ANALYSIS

Sufficiency of charging document

       Mr. Crump challenges the sufficiency of the State’s information, arguing it did not

include the essential element of knowledge. Because this claim was not raised at trial,

we must liberally review the charging document in favor of validity. “An information is

sufficient under this standard if it contains some language from which notice of each

required element of the offense can be found.” State v. Level, 19 Wn. App. 2d 56, 60,

493 P.3d 1230 (2021). All elements must be included, even a nonstatutory element such

                                             3
No. 38963-4-III
State v. Crump

as knowledge. Id. “If facts supporting one or more elements cannot fairly be implied,

prejudice is presumed and the charge must be reversed.” Id.

       Here, Count 1 of the amended information alleged:

       That the said Christopher Michael Crump in the County of Walla Walla,
       State of Washington, on or about September 15, 2021, did unlawfully
       possess a stolen motor vehicle, to-wit: 1994 Ford Escort, the property of
       Stephan R. Hansell; . . . .

Clerk’s Papers at 38.

       This case is on all fours with our decision in Level. The crime of unlawful

possession of a stolen motor vehicle includes a nonstatutory element of knowledge.

Even under the liberal construction standard, a charging document that merely accuses a

defendant of “‘unlawful’” possession of a “stolen” motor vehicle is insufficient to convey

the element of knowledge. Level, 19 Wn. App. 2d at 63.

       The State argues this court should decline to follow Level because its holding

is “directly contrary” to the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Porter,

186 Wn.2d 85, 375 P.3d 664 (2016). See Br. of Resp’t at 8-9. The State is wrong. Porter

is factually and legally distinct from this case.

       In Porter, the Supreme Court held that a charging document need not allege a

statutory definition of an element of the offense; the court did not hold that an information

need not allege a nonstatutory element. If anything, Porter supports our conclusion that

                                               4
No. 38963-4-III
State v. Crump

reference to the nonstatutory element is required. The charge in Porter involved unlawful

possession of a stolen motor vehicle. The court noted the charging document “alleged

that [Clifford] Porter knowingly possessed property that he knew to be stolen.” Porter,

186 Wn.2d at 92. According to the court, this language “sufficiently articulated the

essential elements of the crime.” Id. Nothing in Porter suggests the State’s information

would have passed muster had it excluded reference to the mens rea element of

knowledge.

       The State’s information here failed to adequately allege the crime of possession

of a stolen motor vehicle. Mr. Crump’s conviction for this charge must therefore be

dismissed without prejudice.

Evidentiary challenge

       Mr. Crump contends the trial court committed prejudicial error by admitting

evidence of Mr. Crump’s Facebook profile photo found by police during a prior

investigation. Although the admissibility of the photo is technically moot given our

disposition of the stolen motor vehicle charge, we address Mr. Crump’s claim in the

event that there is a retrial of the stolen motor vehicle charge.

       “The fundamental limitation on the information that the parties can present

to the jury is that the evidence must be relevant.” Miguel A. Méndez, EVIDENCE:

                                               5
No. 38963-4-III
State v. Crump

THE CALIFORNIA CODE AND THE FEDERAL RULES A PROBLEM APPROACH § 1.01, at 2

(1995). Relevance is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the admissibility of

evidence. To be admissible, evidence must be relevant. ER 402. But not all relevant

evidence is admissible. Id. Sometimes relevant evidence must be excluded on

constitutional grounds “or as otherwise provided by statute” or rules. Id. Evidence is

relevant if it tends to make a fact of consequence more or less likely to be true than it

would be without the evidence. ER 401.

       The evidence at issue here is a two-year-old picture of Mr. Crump wearing a red

Chicago Bulls hat in a Facebook photo. According to the State, the photo is relevant to

show Mr. Crump possessed the vehicle at issue in this case. The State’s reasoning is that

the similarity between the hat in the photo and the hats found in the stolen vehicle suggest

they are owned by the same person. And if the hats in the vehicle belonged to Mr. Crump,

this would suggest that he was in primary possession of the vehicle, contrary to his claim

that he had merely borrowed the car from a friend.

       We disagree that the Facebook photo is relevant. The hat depicted in the Facebook

photo is not the same as either of the hats found in the vehicle. This circumstance alone

dooms the State’s theory of relevance. Hats are a common accessory. The fact that

Mr. Crump often wears hats does not tend to suggest that he owned either of the two

                                              6
No. 38963-4-III
State v. Crump

hats found in the car. To be sure, the fact that the hats were found in a car driven by

Mr. Crump tends to suggest that Mr. Crump was the owner of the hats. But the fact that

Mr. Crump has been seen on past occasions wearing hats does not make his ownership

or possession of the hats in the car more probable. Cf. ER 401 (defining relevance).

       The State emphasizes that the hats in the car were red and that Mr. Crump often

wears red hats. This is not a helpful detail. Red is an exceedingly common color. Of the

32 teams in the National Football League, 11 use the color red. 1 Of the 30 teams in Major

League Baseball, 17 use the color red. 2 And in the National Basketball Association,

12 of the 30 teams use the color red. 3 This of course is just a small sampling of hat

types. Red is also a common attribute in hats associated with other professional and

       1
         Buffalo Bills, New England Patriots, Pittsburgh Steelers, Houston Texans,
Tennessee Titans, Kansas City Chiefs, New York Giants, Atlanta Falcons, Tampa Bay
Buccaneers, Arizona Cardinals, and San Francisco 49ers. Teams, NAT’L FOOTBALL
LEAGUE, https://www.nfl.com/teams/ (last visited Jan. 29, 2024).
       2
         Arizona Diamondbacks, Boston Red Sox, Chicago Cubs, Cincinnati Reds,
Cleveland Guardians, Los Angeles Angels, Los Angeles Dodgers, Miami Marlins,
Minnesota Twins, New York Yankees, Philadelphia Phillies, Seattle Mariners, St. Louis
Cardinals, Texas Rangers, Toronto Blue Jays, and Washington Nationals. An 18th team,
the Atlanta Braves uses the similar but apparently distinct color of scarlet. Teams, MAJOR
LEAGUE BASEBALL, https://www.mlb.com/team (last visited Jan. 29, 2024).
       3
         Atlanta Hawks, Chicago Bulls, Denver Nuggets, Detroit Pistons, Houston
Rockets, Los Angeles Clippers, Miami Heat, New Orleans Pelicans, Philadelphia 76ers,
Portland Trailblazers, Toronto Raptors, and Washington Wizards. Teams, NAT’L
BASKETBALL ASS’N, https://www.nba.com/teams (last visited Jan. 29, 2024).

                                              7
No. 38963-4-III
State v. Crump

nonprofessional sports teams, political enthusiasts, and patriotic Americans. The fact

that a particular hat is red is not sufficient to suggest that the hat may be associated

with any one person.

       It could be that what the State is trying to say is that Mr. Crump is the type of

person who prefers red hats. This is speculative. Given the ubiquity of the color red, the

fact that Mr. Crump may often be seen wearing a red hat does not suggest he has picked

out his hats for their red color, as opposed to some other reason. But even if there were

some truth to the idea that Mr. Crump is uniquely interested in hats that are red, the

implications of this suggestion would appear improper. As many people know—including

most likely many prospective jurors—red is a color associated with the Norteños street

gang. The suggestion that Mr. Crump might be associated with the Norteños is highly

prejudicial and wholly irrelevant to the charged crime. See State v. Juarez DeLeon,

185 Wn.2d 478, 490-91, 374 P.3d 95 (2016). The State is prohibited from introducing

evidence that implies gang association without a strong theory of relevance. See id.

       The Facebook photo depicting Mr. Crump wearing a red hat is not relevant.

It should have been excluded from evidence under ER 402. 4

       4
         Because the hat is not relevant, it has no probative value. Thus, there is no need
for balancing probative value versus prejudicial effect under ER 403.

                                               8
No. 38963-4-III
State v. Crump

LFOs

       Mr. Crump contends that by ordering restitution, interest, and a crime victim

penalty assessment without first considering his ability to pay, the trial court violated his

constitutional right to be free from excessive fines. We disagree with this constitutional

challenge. Nevertheless, recent statutory changes provide Mr. Crump some relief.

       Our case law holds that restitution tied to a victim’s losses, interest, and penalties

such as a special penalty assessment, does not violate the excessive fines clause. See State

v. Ellis, 27 Wn. App. 2d 1, 13, 530 P.3d 1048 (2023); State v. Ramos, 24 Wn. App. 2d

204, 229-230, 520 P.3d 65 (2022). Here, Mr. Crump’s restitution award was tied to the

victims’ actual losses. Thus, he states no constitutional claim. 5

       Although Mr. Crump’s constitutional challenge fails, he is entitled to the benefit

of several recent statutory amendments given his case is pending direct review. See State

v. Ramirez, 191 Wn.2d 732, 748-49, 426 P.3d 714 (2018); Ellis, 27 Wn. App. 2d at 16.

Under RCW 9.94A.753(3)(b), Mr. Ellis may seek relief from restitution and interest

ordered payable to a state agency based on an inability to pay. 6 Relief from interest on

       5
         Given our disposition of the stolen motor vehicle charge, the only restitution
order at issue in this appeal pertains to the damage to the malicious mischief charge.
       6
         It is unclear whether Walla Walla Court Services qualifies as a state agency.
That issue can be resolved on remand.

                                               9
No. 38963-4-III
State v. Crump

restitution is also possible under RCW 10.82.090(2). Finally, because the trial court has

found Mr. Crump indigent, Mr. Crump is entitled to waiver of the $500 crime victim

penalty assessment under RCW 7.68.035(4).

       We remand this matter so that Mr. Crump may take advantage of the foregoing

statutory provisions.

                                     CONCLUSION

       Mr. Crump’s conviction for unlawful possession of a motor vehicle is reversed

without prejudice. The conviction for malicious mischief is affirmed, but we remand for

resentencing consistent with the terms of this decision.

       A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in

the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to

RCW 2.06.040.

                                          _________________________________
                                          Pennell, J.

WE CONCUR:

______________________________            _________________________________
Lawrence-Berrey, A.C.J.                   Staab, J.

                                            10