Court Opinion

ID: 9954361
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-25 22:15:50.52101+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:05.923435
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON,                                  No. 85917-0-I

                   Respondent                         DIVISION ONE

BENJAMIN ALAN POE,                                    UNPUBLISHED OPINION

                   Appellant

      FELDMAN, J. — Benjamin Alan Poe appeals his convictions of second

degree assault and third degree malicious mischief. Poe argues that there was

insufficient evidence to support his convictions and that the prosecutor committed

misconduct. Additionally, Poe requests that his case be remanded to the trial court

for the purpose of striking the Victim Penalty Assessment (VPA) and DNA

collection fees imposed upon him at sentencing. We remand to the trial court to

strike the VPA and DNA collection fees. In all other respects, we affirm.

                                         I

      The events at issue in this appeal occurred on November 14, 2021, several

days after Poe and Ashley Williams had ended a dating relationship. Early that

morning, Williams was at home with her younger sister, who saw a dark truck with

purple LED headlights, belonging to Poe, pull up to their home. The driver of the

truck threw a lawnmower battery covered in handwritten comments through the
No. 85917-0-I

windshield of a parked black Honda that Williams had been borrowing. Written on

the battery were the messages “stank pussy,” “cop caller,” “karma is a bitch,” and

“punk bitch.” The driver then left the scene.

       When Williams learned from her sister what had happened, she drove to

Poe’s residence to confront him. When she discovered that Poe was not there,

she began to drive home. On the way, she encountered Poe’s truck. Poe sped

directly at her, forcing her to swerve out of the way before he reentered his own

lane. He then followed her back to her home where he committed additional acts

of vandalism as detailed below.

       Poe was eventually arrested and charged with second degree assault and

third degree malicious mischief. At trial, Poe testified that he had been in Portland,

Oregon when the battery was thrown through the windshield of the black Honda

and, further, that he could not have thrown such a battery due to an injury. He

claimed he was driving home from Portland when he encountered Williams on the

road. According to Poe, Williams was driving erratically with no headlights on, and

he had to slam on his brakes to avoid her. Poe said he then followed Williams

home to try to talk to her.

       A jury convicted Poe of second degree assault against an intimate partner

and third degree malicious mischief. Poe appeals.

                                          II

A.     Insufficient Evidence

       Poe argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to sustain a

conviction of assault in the second degree. We disagree.

                                        -2-
No. 85917-0-I

       On appeal, we determine the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial

by deciding “whether any rational fact finder could have found the elements of the

crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Homan, 181 Wn.2d 102, 105, 330

P.3d 182 (2014). This determination requires that “all reasonable inferences from

the evidence must be drawn in favor of the State and interpreted most strongly

against the defendant.” State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068

(1992).   With regard to “conflicting testimony, witness credibility, and the

persuasiveness of the evidence,” we defer to the triers of fact. State v. Raleigh,

157 Wn. App. 728, 736-37, 238 P.3d 1211 (2010).

       The State charged Poe with second degree assault, which required it to

prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Poe had assaulted Williams with a deadly

weapon and had done so with the requisite intent.             RCW 9A.36.021(1)(c).

Addressing the intent element, the trial court instructed the jury that “[a]n assault

is an act done with the intent to create in another apprehension and fear of bodily

injury, and which in fact creates in another a reasonable apprehension and

imminent fear of bodily injury even though the actor did not actually intend to inflict

bodily injury.” Poe claims that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to

prove his intent.

       Contrary to Poe’s argument, a rational trier of fact could have found that

Poe intentionally created the apprehension of bodily harm in Williams. Jurors may

infer criminal intent based on a defendant’s conduct where that intent is “plainly

indicated as a matter of logical probability.” State v. Bea, 162 Wn. App. 570, 579,

254 P.3d 948 (2011). Deferring to the jury’s determination of credibility, we resolve

                                         -3-
No. 85917-0-I

the conflicting testimony between Williams and Poe in Williams’ favor. Williams

testified that as she was driving home from Poe’s residence, she recognized the

distinct purple LED headlights on his truck as it was driving toward her, above the

speed limit, in her lane. She was forced to swerve sharply to avoid him and was

surprised that she did not hit a tree or a curb. Id. at 152. It is a logical inference

that when Poe sped straight toward Williams in her lane of traffic, he did so to make

her think he might hit her with his car. Williams testified that her life flashed before

her eyes and that Poe’s intentions “were very clearly to hurt [her].” Id. at 155. This

evidence, interpreted most strongly against Poe, is sufficient to establish the

requisite intent.

       Additionally, because criminal intent may be “gathered from all the

circumstances of the case,” Poe’s behavior immediately following the near-

collision further supports a finding of guilt. State v. Shelton, 71 Wn.2d 838, 839,

431 P.2d 201 (1967). After avoiding a possible collision, Williams noticed Poe’s

truck following her back to her home. Upon arriving there, she swiftly exited her

car and ran to her front door, locking it just in time to keep out Poe, who, having

also exited his vehicle, was chasing her with a metal pole. While chasing Williams,

Poe yelled profanities and demanded to be let inside. Before leaving the scene,

Poe used the metal pole to break Williams’ porch light as well as to smash the side

mirror on the black Honda. Viewing this evidence in favor of the State, as we must,

we conclude a jury could reasonably find the intent element of the crime beyond a

reasonable doubt

                                         -4-
No. 85917-0-I

       Citing State v. Ward, 125 Wn. App. 243, 104 P.3d 670 (2004), Poe argues

that “[d]irecting intimidating conduct at someone does not necessarily establish

sufficient evidence to support the requisite intent to support a conviction for assault

in the second degree.” In Ward, the court stated that the specific intent required

for second degree assault “may be inferred from pointing a gun, but not from mere

display of a gun.” 125 Wn. App. at 248. If pointing a gun is sufficient to establish

that a defendant had the intent to cause apprehension of bodily harm, then it

logically follows that driving a car straight toward somebody would also be

sufficient to establish intent.

       Poe next attempts to support his argument by asserting that the evidence

of intent here falls short of that in State v. Baker 136 Wn. App. 878, 151 P.3d 237

(2007), and State v. Toscano, 166 Wn. App. 546, 271 P.3d 912 (2012). In Baker,

while being pursued by police, the defendant reversed his vehicle into a police

cruiser and swiped a police motorcycle. 136 Wn. App. at 881-82. In Toscano, the

defendant drove her car directly in front of a police cruiser that was giving chase

to her nephew’s vehicle and then darted into a nearby intersection, with her high

beams on, to once more block the path of the cruiser. 166 Wn. App. at 549. Just

like the defendants in those cases, Poe drove his vehicle directly at another

occupied vehicle, and his subsequent actions (following Williams home, chasing

her with a metal pole, destroying her property) are more than sufficient to support

a finding that he had the requisite intent to cause apprehension and fear of bodily

injury in Williams.

                                         -5-
No. 85917-0-I

       Finally, Poe argues that there was no evidence presented to show that Poe

recognized the oncoming car as Williams’ and that his actions could easily be the

result of reckless driving or driving under the influence. Even if it is possible that

Poe was driving recklessly or while under the influence, these are not proper

reasons to find insufficiency of the evidence: “[t]he existence of hypothetical

explanations consistent with innocence does not mean there is insufficient

evidence to support a conviction.” State v. VJW, 37 Wn. App. 428, 433, 680 P.2d

1068 (1984). For the same reason, the possibility that Poe did not recognize the

oncoming car as Williams’ does not vitiate the evidence presented at trial which

indicated that Poe did recognize Williams.

       Considering the evidence above in the light most favorable to the State, a

reasonable trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Poe

intended to create the apprehension of bodily harm in Williams.

B.     Prosecutorial Misconduct

       Next, Poe argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct by improperly

commenting on Poe’s constitutional right to remain silent. We disagree.

       During closing arguments, the prosecutor stated as follows:

              Where was the defendant on November 14th when the police
       arrived? He was gone. He left. He left the house. He didn’t stick
       around on November 14th to tell the police hey, I can’t throw that
       battery into that car because I got a bum arm. He didn’t stick around
       for that. He didn’t stick around to tell the police that he was actually
       [down] at Delta Park when all this thing was going down buying
       cigarettes at 1:00 in the morning. It’s not until a year later, today, that
       he offers any story about what happened.

Poe claims that the prosecutor’s remarks were improper because they commented

on Poe’s right to remain silent.

                                          -6-
No. 85917-0-I

       Poe failed to object to the prosecutor’s comments at trial. “[F]ailure to object

to an improper remark constitutes a waiver of error unless the remark is so flagrant

and ill intentioned that it causes an enduring and resulting prejudice that could not

have been neutralized by an admonition to the jury.” State v. Slater, 197 Wn.2d

660, 681, 486 P.3d 873 (2021). Under this heightened level of scrutiny, we “focus

less on whether the prosecutor’s misconduct was flagrant or ill intentioned and

more on whether the resulting prejudice could have been cured.”              Id.   We

“consider[] the prosecutor’s arguments in the context of the case, the arguments

as a whole, the evidence presented, and the jury instructions.” Id.

       Even if the prosecutor’s remarks were improper, as the State here appears

to concede, they did not cause a prejudice incurable by an admonition to the jury.

The burden is on Poe to show that “(1) no curative instruction would have obviated

any prejudicial effect on the jury and (2) the misconduct resulted in prejudice that

had a substantial likelihood of affecting the jury verdict.” State v. Emery, 174

Wn.2d 741, 761, 278 P.3d 653 (2012). If Poe had objected at trial, the court could

have explained that the jury should not use Poe’s absence from the scene of the

crime as substantive evidence of his guilt, effectively neutralizing any prejudice

that may have been caused by the remarks.

       Poe argues that the remarks were prejudicial because the case turns on the

jury’s determinations of credibility. However, the State convincingly responds that

although “Poe admitted no evidence beyond his testimony, the State’s case

contained more than simply the credibility of Williams’s [sic] testimony.” The State

presented the corroborating testimony of Williams’ sister, a recording of the 911

                                         -7-
No. 85917-0-I

call made by Williams to the police, and testimony of responding officers as to

Williams’ demeanor upon arrival at her residence as well as photos of the broken

side mirror on the black Honda, the broken light fixture from Williams’ porch, the

battery lodged in the black Honda’s windshield, and the vulgar writings on the

battery. Additionally, the trial court provided instructions to jurors deeming them

“the sole judges of the credibility of each witness” and informing them that “lawyers’

statements are not evidence.” On this record, we cannot find, as we must to grant

relief, that the prosecutor’s remark in closing argument was so flagrant and ill

intentioned that it caused an enduring and resulting prejudice that could not have

been neutralized by an admonition to the jury.

       For similar reasons, Poe’s reliance on State v. Burke, 163 Wn.2d 204, 181

P.3d 1 (2008), is misplaced. In that case, the defendant invoked his right to remain

silent during a police interrogation, and at trial the prosecutor “intentionally invited

the jury to infer guilt from Burke’s termination of his interview” with the police. Id.

at 222 (emphasis added). The court held that the prosecutor’s statement was an

improper comment on the evidence because it focused on Burke’s invocation of

the right to remain silent during an interview. Id. at 222-23. Here, in contrast, the

prosecutor did not comment directly on Poe’s right to remain silent but rather on

his flight from the scene. Additionally, unlike Burke, the prosecutor’s statement

here could have been neutralized by a curative instruction and was not, in any

event, prejudicial given the substantial corroborating evidence at trial.

                                         -8-
No. 85917-0-I

       Considering the neutralizing potential of a curative jury instruction and the

lack of enduring prejudice that resulted, Poe fails to show that the prosecutor’s

remarks had a substantial likelihood of affecting the jury verdict on either charge.

C.     VPA and DNA Collection Fees

       Finally, Poe requests that we remand his case to the trial court to strike both

the $500 VPA as well as the $100 DNA collection fee imposed upon him during

sentencing. Under the recently amended RCW 7.68.035 and 43.43.7541, no VPA

may be imposed upon an indigent defendant and no DNA collection fee may be

imposed upon defendants regardless of indigency.            Although the amended

statutes took effect after Poe’s sentencing, they apply here because Poe’s case is

on direct appeal. See State v. Ellis, 27 Wn. App. 2d 1, 16-17, 530 P.3d 1048

(2023). At trial, Poe was found to be indigent. We therefore remand for the trial

court to strike the VPA and DNA collection fee from Poe’s judgment and sentence.

       In all other respects, we affirm.

WE CONCUR:

                                           -9-