Court Opinion

ID: 9537209
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:14:12.586782+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:56:11.882988
License: Public Domain

Swanson, J.
(dissenting)—I cannot agree with the majority's conclusion that there is insufficient evidence to support the jury's guilty verdict based on accomplice liability.
The majority's own recital of the facts places Ramirez in the very center of an active heroin distribution operation, involving $30,000 of heroin sold each week and masterminded by her live-in-companion, Garcia. The majority further acknowledges that there is enough evidence to support a finding that she was in constructive possession of heroin, yet draws the astonishing conclusion that "there is not even an inference of Ramirez's liability as an accomplice. "
The majority seeks to characterize Ramirez as the cook and cleaning lady whose efforts were devoted exclusively to domestic tasks, "totally distinct from and incidental to" the possession of heroin with intent to deliver criminal activity. Such a narrow description of Ramirez's role in the enterprise is misleading and incorrect.
Preliminary to any review of the evidence regarding Ramirez's involvement, it must be borne in mind that the evidence and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom are to be interpreted in a light most favorable to the State. In addition, our Supreme Court has held that an aider and abettor's culpability may be established by circumstantial evidence. State v. Gladstone, 78 Wn.2d 306, 317, 474 P.2d 274, 42 A.L.R.3d 1061 (1970).
This criminal enterprise began following Ramirez's arrival in Seattle with Garcia. The Cloverdale house in West Seattle was established as the base of operations, with *92Garcia generally in charge. He arranged for resupplying the heroin and for delivery. Amezola and Peraza, the two young Hispanics from Southern California, took orders along with Garcia and made deliveries. While Ramirez primarily took care of the house, prepared the meals, cleaned the kitchen and other rooms, other facts overwhelmingly show her complicity in the criminal activity spanning many weeks and persuade me that she was an important member of the heroin distribution team.
All of the residents of the house including Ramirez traveled to Seattle to occupy the Cloverdale house and immediately began a highly organized heroin distribution operation. Ramirez was not a stranger to the principal drug dealer, Garcia. She had shared an apartment with him in Long Beach, California. She shared the house and a bedroom with Garcia in the Cloverdale house in Seattle. As to her guilty knowledge, none of the residents of the house held a job or had a source of income apart from profits obtained from selling heroin. Nonetheless, Garcia and Ramirez apparently managed somehow to maintain residences in two states and, on at least one occasion, travel together briefly to the apartment in California. From these facts and the reasonable inferences therefrom, a fact finder could conclude that the only purpose of occupying the house was to use it as a drug distribution center.
There was substantial evidence that Ramirez knew exactly what was going on. As correctly recited in the majority opinion, Garcia, Peraza, and Amezola typically would cut and package heroin in the kitchen while Ramirez was preparing dinner or just working in the kitchen. There was no attempt to conceal this activity from her; she was treated at all times as a trusted participant.
There is also testimony in the record that 10 to 20 calls were received each day requesting heroin deliveries. While Ramirez did not answer the phone, she was frequently present when the calls were received and when Garcia would direct Amezola and Peraza to deliver the heroin. On one occasion she was seated next to Garcia when an order *93was received. He then told Amezola and Peraza how much was ordered and where to deliver it.
While she usually only left the house to shop for groceries, Ramirez accompanied Garcia on a trip to California allegedly to check on her apartment. Garcia and Ramirez returned to Seattle with heroin.
When the police arrested Ramirez and the other occupants, substantial quantities of heroin, $15,000 in United States currency, weapons, ammunition, a cocaine kit, scales, and other items were seized. I agree with the majority opinion that the jury could properly find that Ramirez had constructive possession of heroin.
The profits from the heroin selling scheme were divided among Amezola, Peraza, and Garcia. During the entire operation, from the receipt of the raw or bulk heroin from sources in California delivered by couriers, to the cutting, packaging, taking orders, and delivering of heroin, Ramirez was literally and figuratively in the middle of the enterprise.
Despite this evidence of direct involvement and the reasonable inferences therefrom, the majority concludes because she never actually handled heroin, assisted in the packaging, or went on deliveries, that Ramirez's activity amounted to nothing more than physical presence and assent and was insufficient to establish accomplice liability. Our Supreme Court in In re Wilson, 91 Wn.2d 487, 588 P.2d 1161 (1979) made it clear that a person aids and abets if he or she in some way associates himself or herself with the undertaking or participates in it as in something he or she desires to bring about by his or her actions to make it succeed. Wilson, at 491.
Ramirez associated herself with the entire undertaking even though she may have stopped short of putting the heroin in baggies and physically delivering it to a buyer. Her contribution to the enterprise, keeping house, preparing the meals, and shopping for groceries, enabled the active drug dealers, Garcia, Amezola, and Peraza, to devote full time to the packaging and selling activity and thus *94helped to bring about a smooth running and efficient operation. It is significant that Ramirez's role did not involve an isolated and otherwise unexplained presence at a single, discrete event, but rather a continuing and close association with the drug dealers over a protracted period of time.
Viewed individually or out of context the evidentiary circumstances do not support a finding of accomplice liability. Viewed in context, however, the direct evidence, the circumstantial evidence, and the resulting inferences all point to Ramirez as one "ready to assist" in the commission of the crime of possessing heroin with intent to deliver and would permit a fact finder to attribute to her active participation and the kind of continued support to the enterprise that constitutes affirmative action not mere approval or passive acquiescence.
Whether or not Ramirez's implicit ostrich defense was credible is not for this court to determine; there was, however, sufficient evidence to present the question of accomplice liability to the jury.
I would affirm the conviction.