|
DO NOT CITE. SEE GR 14.1(a).
Court of Appeals Division I
State of Washington
Opinion Information Sheet
| Docket Number: |
66659-2 |
| Title of Case: |
State Of Washington, Respondent V. Jerry Lee Ramseur, Appellant |
| File Date: |
06/04/2012 |
SOURCE OF APPEAL
----------------
| Appeal from King County Superior Court |
| Docket No: | 10-1-04003-6 |
| Judgment or order under review |
| Date filed: | 01/24/2011 |
| Judge signing: | Honorable Catherine D Shaffer |
JUDGES
------
| Authored by | J. Robert Leach |
| Concurring: | Ann Schindler |
| Ronald Cox |
COUNSEL OF RECORD
-----------------
Counsel for Appellant(s) |
| | David Bruce Koch |
| | Nielsen Broman & Koch PLLC |
| | 1908 E Madison St |
| | Seattle, WA, 98122-2842 |
Counsel for Respondent(s) |
| | Dennis John Mccurdy |
| | King County Prosecutor's Office |
| | 516 3rd Ave Ste W554 |
| | Seattle, WA, 98104-2362 |
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF WASHINGTON
No. 66659-2-I
Respondent,
v.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
JERRY LEE RAMSEUR
FILED: June 4, 2012
Appellant.
Leach, C.J. -- Jerry Ramseur challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to
support his second degree robbery conviction. Because the State presented
enough evidence for a rational trier of fact to find each element of the crime
beyond a reasonable doubt, we affirm.
Background
In April 2010, Jennifer Turol was working as a uniformed security guard at
a Safeway grocery store. She noticed Jerry Ramseur walking through the store
acting suspiciously and she began to trail him. From a distance of between 10
to 20 feet, she saw Ramseur take a package of steaks out of his shopping
basket and slip them inside his coat. He set down the basket and attempted to
exit the store without paying. Turol confronted him outside the store and asked
him to come back inside and show her what he had done with the steaks.
Ramseur walked back inside, looking confused. When Turol told him that she
knew he still had the steaks, Ramseur walked away from her and headed toward
No. 66659-2-I/2
the exit. Turol told him not to leave and attempted to physically block his path.
She followed him as he ran out of the building and a struggle ensued. When
Turol attempted to take the steaks from Ramseur's coat, he grabbed her wrist.
She forced Ramseur to the ground in a loose headlock and tried to handcuff him,
but he elbowed her in the stomach and ran away. A jury found Ramseur guilty of
robbery in the second degree. Ramseur appeals.
Analysis
We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to determine
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.1 A claim
of insufficiency admits the truth of the State's evidence as well as all reasonable
inferences that can be drawn from that evidence.2 We defer to the trier of fact
on the issue of the persuasiveness of the evidence.3
A person commits robbery when he "unlawfully takes personal property
from the person of another or in his or her presence against his or her will by the
use or threatened use of immediate force, violence, or fear of injury to that
person or his or her property or the person or property of anyone."4 Ramseur's
argument on appeal focuses on the facts that Turol did not personally own the
steaks, she was at least 10 to 20 feet away from him when he initially concealed
1 State v. Hayes, 164 Wn. App. 459, 482, 262 P.3d 538 (2011).
2 State v. Corbett, 158 Wn. App. 576, 587, 242 P.3d 52 (2010).
3 Corbett, 158 Wn. App. at 587.
4 RCW 9A.56.190.
2
No. 66659-2-I/3
the steaks in his jacket, and he did not use force to take them. He contends that
we should confine our review to the time that he first took the package and put it
in his jacket. We disagree.
The State conceded at oral argument that Ramseur did not take the
steaks from Turol's person. Ramseur alleges that he also did not take them
while in her presence because she was watching him from some distance away.5
But, after defining robbery, the statute describes in more detail the conduct it
criminalizes. It provides that "force or fear must be used to obtain or retain
possession of the property, or to prevent or overcome resistance to the taking."6
Thus, under Washington's transactional view of robbery, the use of force to
retain property or effect an escape constitutes robbery.7
In State v. Manchester,8 we upheld a robbery conviction where the
defendant stole cigarettes from a grocery store while store officials watched from
a distance. The defendant only used force when confronted. In one incident, he
pulled a knife on an employee who tried to detain him; another time, he
threatened to shoot an employee and displayed an ice pick.9 We affirmed
5 At trial, Turol estimated that she was about "the length of the jury box" away,
maybe 10 to 20 feet. Defense counsel's follow up question was "[a]bout 10 to 20
feet, 30, 40 feet, maybe?" to which Turol answered, "Okay." Taking the facts in
the light most favorable to the State, and relying on Turol's actual testimony, we
assume the lesser distance was correct.
6 RCW 9A.56.190 (emphasis added).
7 State v. Manchester, 57 Wn. App. 765, 769-770, 790 P.2d 217 (1990).
8 57 Wn. App. 765, 770, 790 P.2d 217 (1990).
9 Manchester, 57 Wn. App. at 766.
3
No. 66659-2-I/4
Manchester's conviction based on his use of force to retain the cigarettes when
confronted by store personnel.10
Further, in State v. Handburgh,11 our Supreme Court held that robbery
occurs when a person uses force to retain the property taken, even if the initial
taking occurred outside the presence of the property owner. The Handburgh
court noted that "[i]mplicit in the Manchester holding is the assumption a taking
can be ongoing or continuing so that the later use of force to retain the property
taken renders the actions a robbery."12
As in Manchester and Handburgh, Ramseur's actions clearly fall within
the statute's definition of robbery. Indeed, Ramseur acknowledges both that the
Washington legislature intended to treat his crime as robbery and that case law
supports a robbery conviction for someone who takes property from a store,
leaves the store, and then uses force to retain the property once confronted.
We agree that the evidence supports Ramseur's conviction.
But he argues that even if the law intended to criminalize his action, the
"to convict" instruction given to the jury required greater proof -- that he used
force to first take and conceal the steaks and that he was in Turol's presence at
the time.13 We disagree. Jury instructions are read as a whole in
10 Manchester, 57 Wn. App. at 770.
11 119 Wn.2d 284, 293, 830 P.2d 641(1992).
12 119 Wn.2d at 290.
13 As in Manchester, because Ramseur used force to retain the stolen property,
we need not decide whether the original taking, while Turol was 10 to 20 feet
away, was "in her presence."
4
No. 66659-2-I/5
a commonsense manner.14 They are legally sufficient if they permit the parties
to argue their theories of the case, do not mislead the jury, and properly inform
the jury of the applicable law.15 A court will not assume a strained reading of an
instruction.16 The court used Washington Pattern Jury Instructions that mirrored
the statutory language.17 Ramseur's argument that the jury instructions required
finding something more than the express statutory elements of robbery fails.
Viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a
reasonable jury could conclude that Ramseur committed robbery.
Conclusion
Because sufficient evidence supports Ramseur's conviction, we affirm.
WE CONCUR:
14 State v. Bowerman, 115 Wn.2d 794, 809, 802 P.2d 116 (1990).
15 State v. Barnes, 153 Wn.2d 378, 382, 103 P.3d 1219 (2005).
16 State v. Moultrie, 143 Wn. App. 387, 394, 177 P.3d 776 (2008).
17 11 Washington Practice: Washington Pattern Jury Instructions: Criminal
37.04, at 672; 37.50, at 674 (3d ed. 2008).
5
|