Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Anderson

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2

March 27, 2018

STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent,
v.
BRITT AUGUSTUS ANDERSON, Appellant.

          MELNICK, J.

         The State charged Britt Augustus Anderson with possession of stolen property in the first degree and bail jumping. A jury found Anderson guilty of bail jumping but did not return a verdict on the stolen property charge.[1] Anderson argues that the trial court's to convict instruction for bail jumping was constitutionally inadequate because it did not name possession of stolen property as the underlying crime. Because identifying the underlying crime by name is not an element of bail jumping, we affirm.

         FACTS

         In January 2016, the police received information that a front loader had been stolen.

         After an investigation, the State charged Anderson with one count of possession of stolen property in the first degree for the front loader. The court arraigned Anderson. He posted bail and the court ordered him to appear for a pretrial hearing on April 11, 2016. Anderson failed to appear on April 11, but he appeared the next day. The State filed an amended information adding one count of bail jumping. The case proceeded to a jury trial.

         At trial, the court instructed the jury on both counts. Relevant to this appeal, the court provided the following to convict instruction for bail jumping:

To convict the defendant, Britt Anderson, of the crime of Bail Jumping in count 2 of Cause No. 16-1- 00216-9, each of the following elements of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) That on or about April 11, 2016, the defendant failed to appear before a court;
(2) That the defendant was charged with a class B or C felony;
(3) That the defendant had been released by court order or admitted to bail with knowledge of the requirement of a subsequent personal appearance before that court; and
(4) That the acts occurred in the State of Washington.
If you find from the evidence that each of these elements has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then it will be your duty to return a verdict of guilty.
On the other hand, if, after weighing all of the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt as to any one of these elements, then it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.

         Clerk's Papers (CP) at 83 (Instr. 21). The court also instructed the jury that possession of stolen property in the first degree was a class B felony. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.