Clark appeals his convictions for unlawful possession of a
firearm in the second degree. He argues that there was
insufficient evidence that he was subject to the type of
court order that would make his possession of firearms
unlawful. Specifically, he argues that the protective order
he was subject to did not meet the statutory requirement of
explicitly prohibiting him from using physical force.
disagree. An order does not need to quote the language of the
statute to be explicit. Clark's order clearly prohibited
the use of physical force. We affirm.
2015, Brittany Codomo petitioned the superior court for a
domestic violence protection order against Clark. The court
issued a temporary order, which required Clark to surrender
any firearms he possessed. In July, the court issued a
permanent order for protection (the Order) and an order to
September, a detective from the King County Sheriffs Office
obtained a warrant to search a storage area that Clark had
rented. Inside, the detective found several firearms,
including two pistols registered to Clark.
State charged Clark with two counts of unlawful possession of
a firearm in the second degree. Clark waived his right to a
jury trial and submitted the case on the basis of a
stipulated record. The court found Clark guilty.
argues there is insufficient evidence that he was subject to
a court order that made his possession of firearms illegal
because the Order did not explicitly prohibit the use of
force. The State responds that the Order did not need to use
the exact language of the statute for the prohibition to be
explicit. We agree with the State.
State must prove all elements of a charged crime beyond a
reasonable doubt. State v. Larson, 184 Wn.2d 843,
854, 365 P.3d 740 (2015). When reviewing a claim of
insufficiency, we assume the truth of all the State's
evidence and draw all inferences in the light most favorable
to the State. State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201,
829 P.2d 1068 (1992). We then decide whether "any
rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt." Salinas, 119 Wn.2d at 201.
Clark was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm. It
is illegal to possess a firearm while subject to certain
domestic violence protection orders. RCW 9.41.040(2)(a). To
make the possession of a firearm illegal, the underlying
protective order must, "[b]y its terms, explicitly
prohibit the use, attempted use, or threatened use of
physical force against the intimate partner or child that
would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury."
stipulated to the admission of the Order and does not dispute
that he was subject to it. Therefore, the only question
before us is whether the Order satisfies the statutory
requirements. Clark argues that the Order does not because it
does not explicitly mention physical force. Clark's
argument depends on the definition of "explicitly."
Therefore, it is a question of statutory interpretation,
which this court reviews ...