State v. Delmarter
618 P.2d 99, 94 Wash. 2d 634, 1980 Wash. LEXIS 1397 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's specific intent to commit a higher degree of theft can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, even without direct proof of the defendant's knowledge of the specific property targeted or its exact value, so long as a rational trier of fact could find the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution.
Facts:
- Rodney Guy Delmarter entered Warren's Drug Store and proceeded to the prescription counter at the back.
- Delmarter entered a restricted pharmacy area, which was marked by a swinging door and an 8-inch step up to a raised floor.
- The pharmacist discovered Delmarter crouched on the floor deep inside the pharmacy area.
- Delmarter was positioned in front of, but facing away from, a camouflaged cash drawer that appeared to be a shelf containing medications.
- This camouflaged drawer was located approximately 17 feet from the entrance to the restricted area.
- At the time of the incident, the drawer contained approximately $1,800 in cash and controlled substances valued at about $100.
- When confronted by the pharmacist, a struggle ensued, after which Delmarter fled the store.
Procedural Posture:
- Rodney Guy Delmarter was charged with simple assault and attempted theft in the first degree.
- Following a trial in a Washington state trial court, a jury convicted Delmarter on both counts.
- Delmarter filed a post-trial motion for a new trial or, in the alternative, to reduce the conviction to attempted theft in the third degree, which the trial court denied.
- Delmarter (appellant) appealed the attempted theft conviction to the Washington Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Washington Supreme Court (the state's highest court) granted Delmarter's petition for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does sufficient evidence exist to prove a defendant had the specific intent to commit attempted first-degree theft of property exceeding $1,500 in value, based on circumstantial evidence of him being found crouched near a hidden cash drawer in a restricted area, without direct evidence that he knew of the drawer's existence or its contents?
Opinions:
Majority - Dolliver, J.
Yes. Sufficient evidence exists for a rational trier of fact to find the defendant had the specific intent to commit attempted first-degree theft. The specific criminal intent of an accused may be inferred from conduct and circumstantial evidence where it is plainly indicated as a matter of logical probability. The court does not require the prosecution to prove the defendant knew the value of the property exceeded the statutory amount for first-degree theft, only that he intended to commit the theft of that property. The court found that a rational jury could infer intent from the totality of the circumstances, including Delmarter's unauthorized presence in a clearly restricted area, his location deep within that area, and his position crouched directly in front of the hidden cash drawer. Applying the standard from Jackson v. Virginia, which asks whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the court concluded the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
Dissenting - Williams, J.
No. The evidence is insufficient for a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to steal the contents of the camouflaged cash drawer. While the evidence supports a conviction for a lesser degree of attempted theft, there is no evidence establishing that Delmarter knew of the drawer's existence. The majority's conclusion rests on speculation. A more likely inference from the evidence is that Delmarter intended to take the controlled substances that were in plain view on nearby shelves, which would not meet the value threshold for first-degree theft. Therefore, the conviction should be reduced to attempted third-degree theft.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the principle that specific intent for an attempt crime can be established entirely through circumstantial evidence, granting significant deference to jury inferences. By adopting the Jackson v. Virginia standard, the court lowers the bar for sufficiency of evidence challenges on appeal, requiring the defendant to show that no rational jury could have reached the conclusion, rather than that the evidence was insubstantial. This decision makes it easier for prosecutors to secure convictions for higher-degree offenses based on the potential value of property in a given area, even without direct evidence of the defendant's knowledge or specific target.
