STATE v. HALE, 128 Wn. App. 1059 (2005)

No. 54681-3-IThe Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One.
Filed: August 1, 2005 UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appeal from Superior Court of Snohomish County. Docket No: 04-1-00906-0. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 07/21/2004. Judge signing: Hon. David F. Hulbert.

Counsel for Appellant(s), Nielsen Broman Koch Pllc, Attorney at Law, 1908 E Madison St, Seattle, WA 98122.

James Hale/Info Only (Appearing Pro Se), Doc #909710, Wa State Correction Ctr., P.O. Box 900, Shelton, WA 98584.

Eric J. Nielsen, Attorney at Law, 1908 E Madison St, Seattle, WA 98122.

Counsel for Respondent(s), Mary Kathleen Webber, Snohomish County Prosecutors Office, Msc 504, 3000 Rockefeller Ave, Everett, WA 98201-4061.

PER CURIAM.

James Hale appeals his conviction for possession of a stolen car arguing that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted evidence that stolen license plates were found inside the car. Hale fails to establish reversible error and we affirm.

FACTS
Hale and a woman walked into a car dealership. The woman wanted to test drive a car. A salesman asked the woman to fill out a credit application before any test drive. The salesman assisted the woman in filling out the credit application at the salesman’s desk. Keys to a white Ford Explorer were located on top of a nearby desk. She was not approved for credit. Hale and the woman left the dealership.

That evening, the staff discovered that the keys for the white Ford Explorer were missing. The next business day, the staff discovered that the white Ford Explorer was missing. Two days later, police located Hale and arrested him. Police found an electronic key fob in Hale’s pocket. He told the officers where they could find the white Ford Explorer parked behind a restaurant. The electronic key found in Hale’s pocket unlocked the car.

Hale told police that a person named Paul owed him money and let him take the white Ford Explorer. Hale drove the car back and forth between Marysville and Everett a couple of times. The next morning while he was driving the car back to Paul’s home, his passenger told him the car was stolen. He continued driving the car that day and ultimately parked it behind the restaurant because he did not want to get caught with it.

Police found a set of stolen license plates and other items inside the Explorer. Hale filed a pretrial motion to exclude any evidence that the license plates had been found inside the car, arguing that there was no evidence that Hale had ever seen the license plates. Because the stolen license plates were in plain view in the rear cargo area and because Hale had possession of the car for a significant period of time, the court allowed police to testify that they found the stolen plates inside the car. The court excluded any evidence of other items found inside the car.

The jury found Hale guilty of first degree possession of stolen property.

DECISION
The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of the stolen license plates. To be admissible, evidence must be relevant.[1]
Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.[2] Even if relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the likelihood it will mislead the jury.[3]
The trial court has broad discretion in determining whether evidence will mislead the jury and a trial court’s determination of relevance and its balancing of probative value against unfair prejudicial effect is reversed only for a manifest abuse of discretion.[4]

The knowledge element of possession of stolen property may be proved by circumstantial evidence. If the defendant knows facts and circumstances which would have led a reasonable person to conclude that the property was stolen, the jury may infer that the defendant had this knowledge, but the jury can equally reject this inference.[5] `It is not essential that there be actual and positive knowledge that the goods were stolen. It is sufficient if there is constructive knowledge through notice of facts and circumstances from which guilty knowledge may be inferred.’[6] The presence of additional suspicious circumstances related to a stolen item is relevant to prove facts and circumstances from which guilty knowledge may be inferred.[7] Here the presence of an extra set of license plates in plain view in the cargo area of the Ford Explorer is a suspicious circumstance that may have led a reasonable person to believe that the car had been stolen. The admission of such evidence was not likely to mislead the jury.

Additionally, any error in the admission of the testimony that the extra license plates were stolen is harmless unless within reasonable probabilities, the outcome of the trial would have been materially affected if the testimony had not been admitted.[8] In light of Hale’s admission to police that he continued to drive the car after he had been told by his passenger that the car was stolen, the admission of the evidence that there were stolen license plates inside the stolen car did not, within reasonable probabilities, materially affect the outcome of the trial.

We affirm.

COLEMAN, AGID and BAKER, JJ.