Appeal from Superior Court of King County. Docket No: 94-8-05124-7. Date filed: 10/24/94.
PER CURIAM -- Dawn MacCormac appeals her conviction in juvenile court as an accomplice to robbery in the second degree. The undisputed findings establish that the principal, a male known as "Carson," took a necklace, CD player, and vest from the victim, Mark Marcu, and that MacCormac's actions encouraged Carson to take Marcu's property. But MacCormac contends that her conviction must be reversed and dismissed because the trial court failed to find an essential element of the crime--that the property was taken or retained by force or fear. We affirm, holding that the omitted finding is implicit in the court's oral decision and was based on uncontradicted evidence. Furthermore, an accomplice need not participate in each element of the offense, nor share in the same mental state required for the principal.
The information charged that MacCormac, together with others, took personal property from Mark Marcu with intent to steal, against his will, by the use or threatened use of immediate force, violence, or fear of injury.
The following facts are undisputed: MacCormac and Marcu had been boyfriend and girlfriend. After they broke up, they often insulted and threatened each other. On August 8, 1994, MacCormac met Marcu. After a typical hostile exchange, MacCormac told Marcu to stay where he was because her friends were going to come down and kill him. Marcu walked away, called his sister, and went into a bowling alley to wait for a ride. MacCormac, her brother Robert, and Carson drove into the bowling alley parking lot. Marcu saw them and when MacCormac called to him, he went outside. He put a vest and a CD player on the ground. Carson went up to Marcu and displayed what appeared to be the handle of a gun which was tucked in his pants. Robert pushed Marcu, and Carson ripped a gold chain off Marcu's neck. MacCormac was standing close by and laughing when this happened. As Carson walked away, MacCormac mentioned the CD player and the vest to him, which encouraged Carson to take them as he was leaving. MacCormac, Robert, and Carson then got in the car and left. MacCormac was wearing the vest the following day when she was arrested.
In a challenged finding, the trial court also found that Carson hit Marcu and threatened to shoot him for arguing with MacCormac. MacCormac incorrectly argues that the finding is unsupported by the evidence. In her statement which was admitted as an exhibit, MacCormac stated that "Carson started bombing (hitting) on Mark with his fists. . . .I never saw Carson with a gun--Carson faked it by putting his hand in his boxers and threatened to shoot Mark." *fn1 The court found MacCormac guilty as an accomplice to the robbery.
MacCormac contends that the written findings of fact and Conclusions of law are inadequate because there is no finding that Carson used fear or threat to take or retain Marcu's property. She further contends that reversal and dismissal rather than remand is required because there is no evidence that Carson used force or fear to take or retain the CD player or the vest, although she concedes there is evidence Carson used force to take the necklace.
The court in a juvenile adjudicatory hearing must enter findings of fact and Conclusions of law as to each element of the offense charged. The findings must state the evidence on which the court relied and the ultimate facts as to each element of the crime. JuCR 7.11(d). State v. Souza, 60 Wash. App. 534, 537, 805 P.2d 237, review denied, 116 Wash. 2d 1026, 812 P.2d 103 (1991).
A person commits robbery when he unlawfully takes personal property from the person of another or in his presence against his will by the use or threatened use of immediate force, violence, or fear of injury. The force or fear must be used to obtain or retain possession of the property or to prevent or overcome resistance to the taking, but in either case, the degree of force is immaterial. RCW 9A.56.190. Washington follows the transactional view of robbery: "Robbery can be considered an ongoing offense, so that regardless of whether force was used to obtain property, force used to retain the stolen property or to effect an escape can satisfy the force element of robbery." State v. Robinson, 73 Wash. App. 851, 856, 872 P.2d 43 (1994). State v. Handburgh, 119 Wash. 2d 284, 292, 830 P.2d 641 (1992).
The findings state the evidence on which the court relied, but they do not state the ultimate finding that Carson used force or fear to take or retain Marcu's property. Nevertheless, neither reversal and dismissal nor remand is required. Although not stated in so many words, the omitted finding is implicit in the court's oral decision. See State v. Bynum, 76 Wash. App. 262, 266, 884 P.2d 10 (1994), (remand unnecessary where oral decision includes findings on all essential elements of the offense), review denied, 126 Wash. 2d 1012, 892 P.2d 1089 (1995). In addition, the evidence on the element of force or fear was undisputed. The uncontradicted evidence requires a finding that Carson took or retained Marcu's property by the use or threatened use of force or fear. State v. Handburgh, 119 Wash. 2d at 293-94 (threats and physical violence supplied the element of force or intimidation); see State v. Souza, 60 Wash. App. at 542-43.
Furthermore, an accomplice need not participate in each element of the offense, nor share the same mental state required for the principal. "Rather, it is the intent to facilitate another in the commission of the crime by providing assistance through his presence or his act that makes the accomplice criminally liable." State v. Galisia, 63 Wash. App. 833, 840, 822 P.2d 303, review denied, 119 Wash. 2d 1003, 832 P.2d 487 (1992). *fn2 MacCormac does not challenge the finding that her actions encouraged Carson to take the CD player and the vest.