State v. Scott

1

STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. TABATHA ANN SCOTT, Appellant.

No. 86852-7-I

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1

November 25, 2024

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Mann J.

Tabatha Scott was convicted of one count of possession of a stolen motor vehicle. On appeal, Scott argues that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a bag of keys and that the victim penalty assessment (VPA) be stricken. We remand to strike the VPA from the judgment and sentence. We otherwise affirm.

I

On June 7, 2021, while on bicycle patrol, Vancouver Police Department Corporal Rey Reynolds noticed a white Pace Arrow motor home parked in the public right of way on Marine Park Way. This area had been a scene of recovered stolen vehicles, abandoned cars, and deposits of solid waste. Reynolds located the vehicle identification number (VIN) number on the motor home and discovered that the home had been reported stolen out of Salem, Oregon on March 6, 2021.

Reynolds knocked on the door of the motor home, but there was no answer after multiple attempts. Reynolds noticed the passenger side door showed signs of being pried open. Reynolds called a tow truck, but the tow truck driver was unable to move the motor home because it was lifted on internal jacks.

A woman, who identified herself as Tabatha Scott, eventually opened the motor home door. Scott told officers that she was sleeping and did not hear their knocks on the door. Officers questioned Scott about the motor home. Scott told officers that she and her husband, Thomas Williams, purchased the motor home around December 2020 from a man named "Hood." Scott explained that she and Williams paid $9,000 for the vehicle but did not have contact information or any identifying details about Hood.

Officers asked Scott to lower the vehicle off the internal jacks so that it could be towed. Scott inserted a screwdriver in the ignition and started the vehicle. When asked about the screwdriver, Scott explained that Hood broke off the key in the ignition. Scott repeated that she did not know the car was stolen.

Scott eventually left and returned in a different car with Williams. Officers learned that the car she returned in was also reported as stolen. Officers searched the car and found a bag of keys that had been shaved down and manipulated. Officers placed the bag of keys into evidence.

Vancouver Police Department Lieutenant Brian Ruder testified at trial that he searched the vehicle and found the bag of keys. Scott objected to this testimony and to any evidence of the bag of keys. Scott argued that it was irrelevant and highly prejudicial. The State countered that the evidence of the keys was relevant to proving knowledge and proving an absence of mistake. The trial court admitted the bag of keys into evidence, explaining:

The first question is one of relevance, whether the issue of the keys that are in the custody or control-albeit in a different vehicle-whether this exceptionally large bundle of keys, some of which include-are these bump or shaved keys whether that is relevant to the question of possession of a stolen vehicle, even though there's a screwdriver in the ignition of the other vehicle. The testimony in the case revolves around, you know, knowledge, as Defense has indicated in the opening statement, whether the State can prove beyond a reasonable doubt a knowing possession of the stolen vehicle. So, I think it definitely survives a relevance objection.

Then, the question is whether, under 403, that although relevant, is-is its probative value substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Certainly, the evidence would be prejudicial, because it would infer a lack of accident. It would infer, you know, keys for other vehicles that are questionable or generally known. And it would tend to negate the idea of an innocent possession of a vehicle that might have some-you know, without a certificate of title, without a registration, without keys, and with a license plate that is mismatched to the VIN number. I'm unable to sustain the objection. I think it is prejudicial but I don't deem it to be unfairly prejudicial under a 403 analysis. So, assuming the State can lay the foundation then, at least this part of the analysis outside of the jury's ear, has been satisfied.

Ruder testified that the keys appeared to be filed down and manipulated. He explained that when a key is manipulated by shaving off certain portions, it can be used to start the ignition of a vehicle. Ruder then testified that Scott confirmed the bag of keys was hers and that she collects strange keys.

The jury found Scott guilty of possession of a stolen motor vehicle and she was sentenced to four months in county jail. Scott appeals.

II

Scott argues that the bag of keys was unduly prejudicial and irrelevant.^[1] We disagree.

We review evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. State v. Bartch, 28 Wn.App. 2d 564, 573, 537 P.3d 1091 (2023) review denied, 2 Wn.3d 1026, 544 P.3d 29 (2024). A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on "manifestly unreasonable or based upon untenable grounds or reasons." State v. Stenson, 132 Wn.2d 668, 701, 940 P.2d 1239 (1997). The appellant has the burden of proving an abuse of discretion. State v Ashley, 186 Wn.2d 32, 39, 375 P.3d 673 (2016).

Relevant evidence is "evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." ER 401. The "threshold to admit relevant evidence is very low. Even minimally relevant evidence is admissible." State v. Darden, 145 Wn.2d 612, 621, 41 P.3d 1189 (2002). For evidence to be relevant, "there must be a logical nexus between the evidence and the fact to be established." State v. Cochran, 102 Wn.App. 480, 486, 8 P.3d 313 (2000). Lastly, relevant evidence "may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury." ER 403.

Scott argues that the possession of keys had no connection to the motor home and did not make it more probable that...