STATE OF WASHINGTON v. RONALD STEVEN LAW (2011)

— The defendant here challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support convictions for violation of a no contact order.   The State's evidence (that he called and wrote to the victim) was circumstantial but the inferences from that evidence were clearly sufficient to support the convictions and we therefore affirm.

Jail records indicated that there were 25 telephone calls that came from the jail to Ms. Weymouth's cellular telephone.   Twenty-two of the calls were made from the jail to Ms. Weymouth's cellular telephone from March 8 to April 8, 2010.   The calls originated from Mr. Law's pod in the jail.   Lieutenant Robert Guerrero of the Benton County Sheriff's Office Bureau of Corrections testified that outgoing calls from the jail may be tracked by a PIN (personal identification number) that is assigned to an inmate.   He testified that it was not uncommon for inmates to swap PIN numbers to avoid being identified as the caller.

A jury found Mr. Law guilty of two counts of violation of a pretrial protection order.

DISCUSSION

Mr. Law contends that the evidence was not sufficient to convict since there was no evidence to connect him with the caller or the PIN, and no showing that he caused the notes to be delivered to Ms. Weymouth.

We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether any rational fact finder could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.  State v. Engel, 166 Wn.2d 572, 576, 210 P.3d 1007 (2009).   We draw all reasonable inferences from that evidence in favor of the State and interpret them most strongly against the defendant.  State v. Joy, 121 Wn.2d 333, 339, 851 P.2d 654 (1993).

Here, the State had to show:

(1) That on or about the time intervening from February 27, 2010 to April 9, 2010, there existed a protection order applicable to the defendant;

(2) That the defendant knew of the existence of this order;

(3) That on or about said date, the defendant knowingly violated a provision of this order which was a restraint provision prohibiting contact with a protected party;  and

(4) That the defendant's act occurred in the State of Washington, County of Benton.

CP at 23, 24 (Count III and IV).   The relevant part of the March 4, 2010, order restrained Mr. Law from,

B. Coming near and from having any contact whatsoever, in person or through others, by phone, mail or any means, directly or indirectly.

Ex. 3.

The evidence introduced by the State included testimony by Lieutenant Guerrero and Ms. Weymouth.   The lieutenant established that Ms. Weymouth received 25 telephone calls on her cellular telephone from Mr. Law's jail pod.   Roughly, 22 of those calls were made between March 8 and April 8, 2010.   Ms. Weymouth confirmed that she received the calls from the jail.   She also confirmed that the conversations concerned Mr. Law. Ms. Weymouth testified that Mr. Law was the only person she knew in the jail at that time.   This showing would certainly permit a rational trier of fact to find that Mr. Law, or someone acting on Mr. Law's behalf, placed the telephone calls.

Mr. Law suggests that the State had to formally identify him as the caller.   We disagree.   The evidence here is circumstantial;  but that is as probative as direct evidence.  State v. Delmarter, 94 Wn.2d 634, 638, 618 P.2d 99 (1980).   Ms. Weymouth could not identify the caller and prison officials could not determine what PIN was used.   But a reasonable inference is that he made or caused the calls to be made in violation of the no contact order.   He was the only person Ms. Weymouth knew at the jail.   He was most likely the only person at the jail who knew the number of Ms. Weymouth's pay-as-you-go cellular telephone.   Sufficient evidence then established that Mr. Law was the person who committed the charged offense.

Additionally, the investigator testified that Ms. Weymouth confirmed to him that some friends of Mr. Law had hand delivered letters to her home:

Q. Well, what did she say?

A. Um, she began to tell me that she had received some letters had been hand delivered to her.   Um, she said that she had been – that some friends of Mr. Law from the jail had came over and visited her.

Report of Proceedings at 107.   A reasonable inference is that Mr. Law caused the letters to be delivered.   But, it was never confirmed when exactly this contact occurred.

Even so, the telephone calls from the defendant's jail pod to the victim's pay-as-you-go cellular telephone support each of the multiple counts.   We affirm the convictions for violation of the no contact order.

A majority of the panel has determined that 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.

_

Sweeney, J.

WE CONCUR:

_

Korsmo, A.C.J.

_

Siddoway, J.

Sweeney, J. FACTS Ronald S. Law was arrested in Benton County for the burglary of Susie Weymouth's home in January 2010.   The court ordered Mr. Law not to have any contact whatsoever, in person or through others, by phone, mail or any means, directly or indirectly with Ms. Weymouth.   Ex. 3. The order was dated March 4, 2010.   Mr. Law and Ms. Weymouth had been sporadically involved in a romantic relationship.   Several days later, Ms. Weymouth began receiving calls on her pay-as-you-go cellular telephone from the same jail where Mr. Law was held.   She could not identify the caller but the conversations concerned Mr. Law. Ms. Weymouth also received letters at her residence;  the letters were hand delivered by a third party associated with Mr. Law. She could not confirm who the letters were from but assumed they were from Mr. Law because they discussed details about her relationship with him.   Ms. Weymouth gave a declaration to Mr. Law's attorney on April 6, 2010.   She declared that Mr. Law had had permission to be at her residence on the evening in question and that he shared access to the stolen documents.   Ms. Weymouth further stated, I assume those documents were in Ron's possession by mistake.   I do not want Ron prosecuted for the charged offenses.   Ex. 2. The State charged Mr. Law with two counts of violation of the protection order.   The amended information alleged violation of the no contact order with contact by telephone, mail, and third persons.   The case proceeded to trial.   There, Ms. Weymouth testified that the declaration may have been the result of intimidation.   She also confirmed that she had received the jailhouse calls and letters.   Ms. Weymouth acknowledged that Mr. Law was the only person she knew who was in jail at the time.   Ms. Weymouth testified that friends of Mr. Law from the jail hand delivered some letters to her home.   She assumed the letters were from Mr. Law because they contained details about their relationship.   A court appointed investigator testified that Ms. Weymouth admitted to him that the declaration was the result of intimidation and was untrue.   And the investigator testified that Ms. Weymouth had confirmed she received letters from a third party associated with Mr. Law.