Opinion
No. 21944-5-III.
Filed: April 27, 2004. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from Superior Court of Spokane County. Docket No: 02-1-02707-6. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 03/28/2003. Judge signing: Hon. Salvatore F Cozza.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Cynthia Ann Jordan, Attorney at Law, 921 W Broadway Ave Ste 201, Spokane, WA 99201-2119.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Kevin Michael Korsmo, Attorney at Law, 1100 W Mallon Ave, Spokane, WA 99260-2043.
Michael Wood asks us to set aside the jury's assessment of the relative credibility of the witnesses at his trial for theft and trafficking in stolen property. He also asks us to reduce the degree of the offenses by revaluing the stolen articles. We do not evaluate the credibility of witnesses. And the evidence here is sufficient to support a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We affirm.
FACTS
Michael Wood was charged with residential burglary, second degree theft, and two counts of trafficking in stolen property in the first degree. At his jury trial, eyewitness Scott Larkin testified that he saw two men leaving the apartment of Duane Kenobbie and Tiffany Drews carrying a television set. He saw the two men load the set into their car and followed them. Mr. Larkin was able to describe the car and give the license plate number, having spotted the car later in the parking lot of a pawn shop.
The evidence included a pawn ticket for the television with Mr. Wood's name on it. A computer store employee identified Mr. Wood as the person who sold the store a used computer. Also, the receipt for this transaction was in Mr. Wood's name.
Douglas Robinson, the accomplice, testified that he and Mr. Wood entered the apartment, searched the rooms for valuables, and grabbed the TV and computer. This witness testified that Mr. Wood carried the TV out to the car. He testified that Mr. Wood pawned the TV. Mr. Robinson corroborated details of Mr. Larkin's testimony, such as the suspects' gunning the car and speeding away from the pawn shop lot when Mr. Larkin approached. Mr. Wood admitted being at the apartment, helping Mr. Robinson load the TV into the car, pawning the TV, and selling the computer. His defense was that he met Mr. Robinson for the first and only time that day. Mr. Wood said he accepted Mr. Robinson's story that the TV belonged to his grandmother, although he was puzzled by Mr. Robinson's reckless driving. The jury found Mr. Wood guilty of one count of second degree burglary and two counts of first degree trafficking.
DISCUSSION
Mr. Wood complains that the only hard evidence against him was the testimony of Mr. Robinson. He contends it was obvious that Mr. Robinson's testimony was not reliable. Mr. Robinson even admitted on the stand that he lied to the police during the investigation and attempted to establish a false alibi. It was error for the jury to have believed Mr. Robinson.
A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence admits the truth of the State's evidence and all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence. State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992).
It is the function and province of the jury to weigh the evidence, to determine the credibility of the witnesses, and to decide the disputed questions of fact. The conflicts in the evidence merely present a question of fact for the jury. The jury is the sole and exclusive judge of the evidence, and the weight to be given thereto, and the credibility of the witnesses. This court will not reverse if there is substantial evidence to support the jury findings. State v. Snider, 70 Wn.2d 326, 327, 422 P.2d 816 (1967) (citations omitted). We will affirm if the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the State would permit a rational trier of fact to find all the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216, 220-21, 616 P.2d 628 (1980); State v. Side, 105 Wn. App. 787, 790, 21 P.3d 321 (2001).
Mr. Wood does not contend that, viewed in this light, the weight of the circumstantial and direct evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.
Mr. Wood contends that the degree of theft charged was too high. He contends that the value of the TV was no more than $50, and that of the computer $40. These were the sums he received from the pawn shop and the computer store while trafficking the goods.
But `value' in this context is market value. State v. Farrer, 57 Wn. App. 207, 208-09, 787 P.2d 935 (1990). In a criminal case, market value is proved in the same manner as in a civil case. State v. Riley, 34 Wn. App. 529, 535, 663 P.2d 145 (1983). As such, it is a question of fact upon which the parties present evidence and the jury decides. See, e.g., id. at 535-36. The victims testified that the combined value of the TV and the computer was in excess of $250.
The judgment and sentence are affirmed.
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.
KATO, C.J. and SCHULTHEIS, J., concurs.