Court Opinion

ID: 9617098
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:52:01.691873+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:05.723920
License: Public Domain

Williams, J.
(dissenting) — Although the majority opinion correctly states the applicable test for analyzing a challenge *639to the sufficiency of the evidence, I believe the majority has misapplied the test and reached the wrong result. I would remand the case with instructions to reduce the conviction to attempted theft in the third degree.
In my view, our task is to determine whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found the elements of attempted first degree theft. State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216, 221, 616 P.2d 628 (1980).
Applying this doctrine, there is no question, and indeed the defendant concedes, that a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of attempted theft in the third degree. The statute provides, in pertinent part:
(1) A person is guilty of theft in the third degree if he commits theft of property or services which does not exceed two hundred and fifty dollars in value.
RCW 9A.56.050(1).
There was substantial evidence in the record to establish the elements of attempted third degree theft. See majority opinion, at 638. A reasonable trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that all the elements of attempted third degree theft were present, from the following evidence: (1) defendant was in a restricted access area without authorization; (2) the restricted character of the area was obvious to customers; (3) the defendant was crouching down well inside the restricted area of the pharmacy; and (4) there was property of value within easy reach of defendant.
The entire record evidence fails, however, to rise to the level required for a rational trier of fact to find the elements of attempted first degree theft beyond a reasonable doubt. The record contains no evidence establishing which property defendant intended to take. There is no evidence that he had seen a store employee use the drawer, either immediately before the incident in question or at any time. The suggestion that defendant knew of the location of the camouflaged cash drawer is speculation at best. The existence of an intent to wrongfully obtain the contents of the *640drawer may be plausible but more likely is an inference that defendant intended to take controlled substances from shelves adjoining the hidden cash drawer. The pharmacist testified that such drugs were in clear view on nearby shelves. In my opinion, no reasonable trier of fact, on the evidence adduced in this case, could find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant intended to commit theft of the contents of the cash drawer.
Accordingly, I am compelled to dissent.
Utter, C.J., and Horowitz and Hicks, JJ., concur with Williams, J.
Reconsideration denied December 9, 1980.