State v. Baeza
| Decision Date | 20 October 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 49601-3,49601-3 |
| Citation | 100 Wn.2d 487,670 P.2d 646 |
| Parties | The STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Jose R. BAEZA, Petitioner. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Michael Aiken, C.E. Hormel, Ephrata, for petitioner.
Paul Klasen, Grant County Prosecutor, Ephrata, for respondent.
Petitioner Jose Baeza challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for the theft of livestock. He also contends certain statements made by the prosecuting attorney during closing argument amounted to prosecutorial misconduct. After considering the evidence most favorable to the State, we conclude there was not sufficient evidence to support the conviction. Consequently, we need not address the question of prosecutorial misconduct.
Petitioner's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence has been raised for the first time on appeal. Nevertheless, due process requires the State to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, thus, sufficiency of the evidence is a question of constitutional magnitude. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 316, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2787, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970). A constitutional claim may be raised initially on appeal. RAP 2.5(a)(3); State v. Regan, 97 Wash.2d 47, 50, 640 P.2d 725 (1982); State v. Theroff, 95 Wash.2d 385, 391, 622 P.2d 1240 (1980). In order to determine whether petitioner's conviction was based on sufficient evidence, we must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution. Jackson v. Virginia, supra; State v. Green, 94 Wash.2d 216, 616 P.2d 628 (1980).
On June 17, 1981, at approximately 9 p.m., Frank Sparks was driving westbound on State Highway 26, toward Royal City, Washington. As he turned north onto Dodson Road he noted some cattle outside their pasture, standing near the road. He also saw a tan Chevrolet pickup truck following a green and white Dodge pickup. Both vehicles proceeded south past Sparks, pulled off the road, and parked near the cattle. Sparks observed some of the occupants get out of the trucks. At this point he turned around and followed the pickups, reaching speeds of 75 to 80 miles per hour. Although he lost the Dodge, he did obtain the license number of the tan Chevrolet. Shortly thereafter, Sparks again saw the green and white Dodge as it was being backed into a shop building on a nearby farmstead. Sparks testified that the tailgate appeared to be dropped and he saw what appeared to be a rope hanging in the shop. He did not know who owned the green and white Dodge pickup, however, and was unable to identify any of its occupants.
Sparks drove to his brother's home to call Stan Clabo, who he believed to be the owner of the cattle. Clabo informed him the owner was Larry Stewart so Sparks called Stewart and the Sheriff's department.
Later that evening, Deputy Sheriff Carlson, Stewart, and Sparks went to the farmstead in Carlson's patrol car. Sparks testified that they arrived around 10:30 or 11 p.m. whereas Carlson set their arrival time as shortly after 10 p.m. Carlson parked in front of the shop building and discovered a freshly butchered calf hanging by a rope from the rafters. The tan Chevrolet earlier observed by Sparks on Dodson Road was parked by the shop with the keys in the ignition. The green and white Dodge was not present, however.
Sparks testified that three persons were standing in the doorway of the shop. Carlson estimated that originally five or six individuals were standing by the shop and in the yard, although at least two disappeared. He arrested two men at the shop, one man sleeping in a car and one sleeping in the basement of the farm house.
About 5 minutes after Carlson arrived, he saw petitioner driving a green and white Dodge past the farmstead. Carlson testified that the Dodge truck accelerated from a speed of 15 or 20 miles per hour to 30 or 35 miles per hour as it passed near the patrol car. At trial petitioner was identified as the registered owner of the vehicle.
Other testimony established that the tan Chevrolet was a ranch vehicle assigned to petitioner's father, the orchard manager, who had been in Royal City on the evening of the theft. He testified that about 13 people were employed at the orchard, in addition to petitioner and himself.
Earlier that evening at about 7 p.m., Stan Clabo had recognized petitioner as they drove past each other on Highway 26. At that time, petitioner was travelling east, near Dodson Road, driving a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wilson
...to each element of second degree assault. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970); State v. Baeza, 100 Wash.2d 487, 488, 670 P.2d 646 (1983). In so doing, it is apparent that the jury did not follow the court's instructions that assault requires transferable i......
-
State v. Smith
...to the sufficiency of the evidence is of constitutional magnitude such that it can be raised initially on appeal. State v. Baeza, 100 Wash.2d 487, 488, 670 P.2d 646 (1983). As recognized by the majority, the existence of three valid felony convictions is a necessary element of the habitual ......
-
State v. Williams
...of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970); State v. Baeza, 100 Wash.2d 487, 488, 670 P.2d 646 (1983). In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the appellate court must view the evidence in the light most ......
-
State v. Cardenas-Flores
...an issue of constitutional magnitude that an appellant may raise under RAP 2.5(a)(3) for the first time on appeal. State v. Baeza , 100 Wash.2d 487, 488, 670 P.2d 646 (1983). Thus, in reaffirming the firmly established principle that the corpus delicti rule is “not constitutionally mandated......
-
Table of Cases
...v. Atteberry, 87 Wn.2d 556, 554 P.2d 1053 (1976): 23.8 State v. Avila, 78 Wn. App. 731, 899 P.2d 11 (1995): 11.3(3)(a) State v. Baeza, 100 Wn.2d 487, 670 P.2d 646 (1983): 11.7(9)(a) State v. Barber, 170 Wn.2d 854, 248 P.3d 494 (2011): 24.5(2) State v. Barberio, 121 Wn.2d 48, 846 P.2d 519 (1......
-
§ 11.7 Particular Applications of the General Rule and Its Exceptions
...and can be raised initially on appeal." City of Seattle v. Slack, 113 Wn.2d 850, 859, 784 P.2d 494 (1989) (citing State v. Baeza, 100 Wn.2d 487, 488, 670 P.2d 646 (1983) (citing RAP 2.5(a)(3))); see also In re Tortorelli, 149 Wn.2d 82, 93, 66 P.3d 606 ("Sufficiency of the evidence is a ques......