Court of Appeals Division II
State of Washington

Opinion Information Sheet

			

    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

                                       DIVISION  II

STATE OF WASHINGTON,                                             No.  41681-6-II

                             Respondent,
                                                           UNPUBLISHED OPINION
       v.

ELISEO CAMPOS,

                             Appellant.

       Armstrong J.  --  Eliseo Campos appeals his jury convictions for possession of a stolen 

motor vehicle and attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle.  Campos argues on appeal that 

the State presented insufficient evidence to prove he was the driver of a stolen vehicle.  We 

affirm.

                                            FACTS

       Mike Burdorff borrowed his mother's Honda Accord to charge the dead battery in his 

Volvo.  After hooking up jumper cables, Burdorff went inside his house.  When he came back 

out, the Honda was missing.  Burdorff immediately reported the theft, describing the vehicle to 

the police as a clean unmarked Honda Accord missing the front driver-side hubcap.  

       Deputy Jay Swanson received a dispatch broadcast of the stolen Honda and started 

following a vehicle that fit the description.  Deputy Swanson made eye contact with the driver, 

identifying him as a Hispanic male with a shaved head and a dark blue shirt.  After confirming that 

the vehicle had the license plates of the stolen vehicle, Deputy Swanson initiated a traffic stop by 

activating his lights.  The vehicle accelerated and Deputy Swanson pursued, reaching speeds of 65 

m.p.h. in a 35 m.p.h. speed zone.  The chase ended on a dead end gravel road where the Honda  

No. 41681-6-II

hit a rock pile.  

       After the Honda hit the rock pile, dust obscured Deputy Swanson's view.  When he got to 

the Honda, the driver's door was open and the driver was gone.  Deputy Swanson believed the 

suspect driver must have fled to a cone-shaped wooded area nearby.  Deputy Swanson called for 

assistance securing the area.      

       Deputy Brian Brennan arrived within 10 minutes with a K-9.  After Deputy Brennan twice 

announced his intent to search the area with a dog, Campos stood up in the wooded area and put 

his hands up.  Campos was wearing a dark navy shirt and had a shaved head.  At trial, Deputy 

Swanson identified Campos as the driver of the stolen Honda.

       The jury convicted Campos of possession of a stolen motor vehicle, attempting to elude a 

pursuing police vehicle, and bail jumping.1  

                                          ANALYSIS

                                 I. Sufficiency of the Evidence

       Campos argues that the State presented insufficient evidence that he was the driver of the 

stolen Honda.   The State responds that Deputy Swanson's eyewitness testimony is sufficient 

evidence to prove Campos was driving the stolen vehicle.

       We test the sufficiency of the evidence by asking whether, viewing the evidence in the 

light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a 

reasonable doubt. State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992).  We accept the 

truth of the State's evidence and all inferences that can reasonably be drawn from that evidence.  

1 Campos conceded at trial that he was guilty of the bail jumping charge.

                                               2 

No. 41681-6-II

Salinas, 119 Wn.2d at 201.  We defer to the trier of fact to resolve issues of conflicting 

testimony, credibility of witnesses, and the persuasiveness of the evidence.  State v. Thomas, 150 

Wn.2d 821, 874-75, 83 P.3d 970 (2004) (citing State v. Cord, 103 Wn.2d 361, 367, 693 P.2d 81 

(1985)).   

       RCW 9A.56.140(1) defines "[p]ossessing stolen property" as 

       knowingly to receive, retain, possess, conceal, or dispose of stolen property 
       knowing that it has been stolen and to withhold or appropriate the same to the use 
       of any person other than the true owner or person entitled thereto.

The State must prove, therefore, that Campos (1) knowingly possessed a stolen motor vehicle, (2) 

knew the motor vehicle had been stolen, (3) withheld or appropriated the vehicle for use by 

someone other than the true owner, and (4) committed these acts in the State of Washington.  See

11 Washington Pattern Jury Instructions: Criminal § 77.21 (3d ed. 2008).  

       RCW 46.61.024(1), defines attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle as follows:

       Any driver of a motor vehicle who willfully fails or refuses to immediately bring his 
       or her vehicle to a stop and who drives his or her vehicle in a reckless manner 
       while attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle, after being given a visual or 
       audible signal to bring the vehicle to a stop, shall be guilty of a class C felony.

       The only issue here is whether the State proved that Campos was driving the stolen 
Honda.2  

       The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is the person who 

committed the charged offense.  State v. Hill, 83 Wn.2d 558, 560, 520 P.2d 618 (1974).  Identity 

is a question of fact for the jury.  Hill, 83 Wn.2d at 560.  The jury should evaluate all relevant 

2 Campos does not argue that he lawfully possessed the Honda or that whoever drove the Honda 
did not know it was stolen.  Campos also does not contest that the driver of the Honda attempted 
to elude a pursuing police vehicle.
                                               3 

No. 41681-6-II

facts that may establish the identity of the person who committed the offense.  Hill, 83 Wn.2d at 

560.

       Deputy Swanson testified that he had a clear view of the driver of the Honda and 

described him as a Hispanic male with a shaved head wearing a blue shirt.  Campos is a Hispanic 

male, had a shaved head at the time of his arrest, and was wearing a dark navy shirt.  Deputy 

Swanson and Deputy Brennan found Campos near the location where the chase ended.  Campos 

stood up in a group of trees where Deputy Swanson believed the Honda driver was hiding. 

Deputy Swanson positively identified Campos as the person he saw driving the Honda.  This 

evidence was more than sufficient to prove that Campos was the driver of the Honda. 

       We affirm.

       A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the 

Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040, it 

is so ordered.

                                                 Armstrong, J.
We concur:

Penoyar, C.J.

Van Deren, J.

                                               4