Rhodes showed them a photograph of Gerdts, and the officers later contacted Gerdts on the street and detained him. ¶ 7 When the police arrived at the club, they found the van scratched and observed metal shavings on the ground near the van. At trial, Rhodes, Gerdts's ex-roommate, confirmed that it was her van that had been scratched and testified that the van was not scratched when she went into the club that night. The Sorlies were also familiar with Rhodes from the club, in part because she had been before the board on disciplinary matters. After determining that Denise Rhodes owned the van and telling her about the damage, someone called the police. ¶ 6 The Sorlies went into the club and asked the patrons whether anyone had parked a van outside. ¶ 5 Although the Sorlies did not see anything in Gerdts's hand as he was walking along the side of the van, when they approached the van they noticed a deep a scratch down the side of the van where Gerdts had been there were metal or paint curls around the van, some still attached to the van. Michelle Sorlie testified that although the other man could have just been walking down the street, it appeared to her that he was acting as a lookout for Gerdts. ¶ 4 When Marcus Sorlie called out to Gerdts, Gerdts ran off quickly, joining another man who was walking down the street. Although they did not know his name, the Sorlies were familiar with Gerdts because he frequented the club. ¶ 3 According to the State's witnesses, when Michelle and Marcus Sorlie arrived at the 12-Step Club, 1 they heard a scraping noise and simultaneously observed Gerdts walking next to a van he appeared to be running his hand along the side of the van. Gerdts pleaded not guilty, and the case went to a jury trial. ¶ 2 The State charged Gerdts with second degree malicious mischief. He also argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel based on his trial counsel's failure to object to the challenged instruction and prosecutorial misconduct. ¶ 1 Garen Mark Gerdts appeals his conviction of second degree malicious mischief arguing that the knowledge instruction in the case (1) created an unlawful mandatory presumption relieving the State of its burden of proving every element of the offense, and (2) was confusing and misleading because it did not follow the exact language of RCW 9A.08.010(1)(b).
Jeremy Richard Randolph, Chehalis, WA, for Respondent. Backlund, Backlund & Mistry, Olympia, WA, for Appellant. Court of Appeals of Washington,Division 2.
0 kommentar(er)
