State v. Shea

STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. JAMES A. SHEA, Appellant.

No. 73939-5-I

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1

November 23, 2015

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Lau J.

A jury convicted James Shea on one count of obstructing a law enforcement officer, one count of hit and run with injury and one count of possession of methamphetamine. Shea appeals arguing his conviction should be reversed because (1) the State failed to present evidence that he made a false statement to support the obstruction charge, (2) the trial court erred when it admitted evidence found in Shea's wallet pursuant to an unconstitutional search, (3) the trial court erred when it admitted self-incriminating statements and (4) counsel's deficient performance denied him his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. Finding no errors, we affirm Shea's judgment and sentence.

FACTS

On November 22, 2013, Office Robert Auderer was at Bob's Tavern in Shelton, Washington. Officer Auderer was off-duty and wearing civilian clothing. He left the tavern when he heard commotion outside. He noticed a yellow Mustang had struck a pedestrian, Grant Manning. The front tire of the car was on top of Manning's foot. The driver, later identified as James Shea, backed the car off Manning's foot and drove away, despite bystanders shouting at him to stop. Manning suffered an injury to his foot and knee. Manning required knee surgery due to the injury.

Officer Auderer followed Shea in his personal vehicle and called 911. Shea parked outside of his residence. Officer Auderer parked nearby. As Shea was exiting his car, Officer Auderer identified himself as a police officer and told Shea that he had been involved in an accident and was not free to leave. Officer Auderer testified that he "immediately was met with profanity." Report of Proceedings (RP) (March 27 2014) at 140. Shea also said something to the effect of "I barely hit that guy. I barely hit him. He wasn't even hurt." RP (March 27, 2014) at 154. Shea began rifling through his pockets. Officer Auderer asked Shea multiple times to keep his hands out of his pockets, but Shea persisted. As a safety precaution, Officer Auderer grabbed Shea by the arm and led him away from his vehicle.

Around this time, three to five of Shea's friends arrived. Some came from inside Shea's residence while others arrived in a car that had been following Shea. Shea's friends surrounded Officer Auderer and questioned his actions. One individual threatened Officer Auderer with physical violence. Officer Auderer described the scene as "intense, " explaining that Shea's friends "surrounded me while I'm still trying to hold onto [Shea] and keep his hands out of his pockets, [and] trying to tell dispatch where I am." RP (March 27, 2014) at 141. Eventually, Officer Auderer was able to remove his Shelton Police Department commission card, bearing a picture of his face, his signature, and a badge declaring he was a Shelton Police Officer. Officer Auderer showed his commission card to Shea and Shea's friends, and one of them exclaimed that Officer Auderer "is a Shelton cop." RP (March 27, 2014) at 144.

Officer Auderer continued to try to restrain Shea, but Shea was uncooperative:

It was a constant tug of war with [Shea]. He-all I wanted him to do-the only thing I wanted Mr. Shea to do was to keep his hands where I could see him and wait for uniformed officers to get up there so we could complete the investigation, and he refused.

RP (March 27, 2014) at 144. Other officers arrived including Officer Backus. Officer Backus was in uniform and driving a black and white patrol car with blue lights activated. Officer Auderer then asked Shea to place his hands behind his back. Shea continued to disobey Officer Auderer and Officer Backus' commands. During the struggle, Shea attempted to empty his pockets. At one point, he removed his wallet and threw it towards one of his friends.

After Officer Auderer and Officer Backus detained Shea, Officer Auderer retrieved the wallet Shea had thrown. The wallet contained Shea's ID card. Officer Auderer testified that a second ID, a driver's license, had been taken out of the wallet and was on the ground nearby. The wallet also contained methamphetamine.

The State charged Shea with one count of possession of methamphetamine, one count of hit and run with injury, and one count of obstructing a law enforcement officer. The jury convicted Shea on all three counts. Shea appeals.

ANALYSIS

Sufficiency of the Evidence

Shea contends the State failed to present sufficient evidence to prove the obstruction charge beyond a reasonable doubt. He argues that to prove obstruction the State must show that he made a false statement to police officers. We disagree.

In a criminal prosecution, the State must prove each element of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In re Winship. 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368(1970).

The test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged in a criminal case, all reasonable inferences from the evidence must be drawn in favor of the State and interpreted most strongly against the defendant. A claim of insufficiency admits the truth of the State's evidence and all inferences that reasonably can be drawn therefrom.

State v. Salinas. 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992) (internal citations omitted). We defer to the factfinder on issues of conflicting testimony, witness credibility, and persuasiveness of the evidence. State v. Thomas, 150 Wn.2d 821, 874-75, 83 P.3d 970 (2004).

Relying on State v. Williams. 171 Wn.2d 474, 251 P.3d 877 (2011), Shea argues that a conviction for obstructing a law enforcement officer requires proof that he made a false statement.^[1] Because the State failed to show that he made any false statement to a police officer, there was insufficient evidence to support the obstruction charge.

Shea's reliance on Williams is misplaced. Williams does not require evidence of a false statement to prove obstruction. The court in Williams held that an obstruction charge cannot be based solely on a defendant's false statement. Williams. 171 Wn.2d at 486. In Williams, the defendant provided a false name when police officers asked him to identify himself. Williams. 171 Wn.2d at 476. The court held that this false statement alone could not support a conviction for obstruction:

In order to avoid constitutional infirmities, we require some conduct in addition to making false statements to support a conviction for obstructing an officer.

Williams. 171 Wn.2d at 486. Williams illustrates that conduct is the primary requirement, not speech.

Indeed, neither the plain language of the statute nor case law requires proof of a false statement to sustain a conviction for obstructing a law enforcement officer. RCW 9A.76.020(1) provides that "A person is guilty of obstructing a law enforcement officer if the person willfully hinders, delays, or obstructs any law enforcement officer in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties." RCW 9A.76.020(1). In State v. Steen. 164 Wn.App. 789, 265 P.3d 901 (2011) the court held that a defendant who made no statements whatsoever nevertheless obstructed law enforcement when his conduct demonstrated willful obstruction:

Under RCW 9A.76.020(1)'s plain language, a person may commit obstruction by willfully disobeying a lawful police order in a manner that hinders, delays, or obstructs the officer in the performance of his or her duties .... Accordingly, the jury could have found that Steen's conduct here-ignoring the officers' lawful orders to exit the trailer with his hands up while the officers were performing their community caretaking functions-was willful conduct that amounted to obstruction.

Steen, 164 Wn.App. at 800-01. A person may commit obstruction through his conduct alone-evidence of a false statement is not necessary. Steen, 164 Wn.App. at 801.

Here, the record shows that the State presented sufficient evidence to prove that Shea willfully obstructed the officers' performance of their duties. Both Officer Auderer and Officer Backus testified that Shea repeatedly disobeyed lawful orders they gave pursuant to their official duties. Officer Auderer testified that he repeatedly ordered Shea to remove his hands from his pockets, to keep his hands where he could see them, and to remain in place. He further testified that Shea repeatedly ignored these orders. Officer Backus provided similar testimony. Viewing this testimony in the light most favorable to the State, "any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Salinas. 119 Wn.2d at 201; see also Steen. 164 Wn.App. at 800-01 ("a person may commit obstruction by willfully disobeying a lawful police order in a manner that hinders, delays, or obstructs the officer in the performance of his or her duties"). Sufficient record evidence supports Shea's obstruction conviction.

Search of the Wallet

Next Shea argues the trial court erred when it failed to exclude the evidence discovered in his wallet. He contends Officer Auderer lacked any legal authority to search the wallet because it posed no safety or evidentiary concern and was in the possession of a third party. We conclude that the search was valid because Shea voluntarily abandoned the wallet during the seizure.^[2]

Both State and Federal Constitutions prohibit unreasonable searches. See Wash. Const, art. I § 7; U.S Const, amend IV. A warrantless search is unconstitutional unless it falls under one of "'a few jealously guarded exceptions.'" State v. Samalia. 186...