State v. Peterson
State v. Peterson
Opinion of the Court
¶1 Ronnie Adam Tyler Peterson appeals his bench trial convictions for attempted first degree robbery and first degree malicious mischief, both committed while
I. The Incident
¶2 Late one December, Don Westfall, his son Donnie Westfall,
¶3 Westfall ordered Donnie to drive after Peterson, who was also carrying something that looked like “the car stereo” under his arm. Peterson jumped into the bushes bordering the park and ride lot perimeter, but he was unable to penetrate further into the dense bushes. Westfall jumped out of his truck, pursued Peterson on foot, and shouted for Peterson to stop and to come out. At some point during this pursuit, Peterson dropped the car stereo into the ditch just beyond the bushes.
¶4 With his right hand extended, Peterson approached Westfall and shouted something like, “I have a knife. I will
¶5 Shortly thereafter, a deputy sheriff arrived and took Peterson into custody. Thurston County Sheriff’s Deputy Chris Ivanovich noticed a car stereo on the ground and a lockable knife nearby. The blade of the knife measured exactly three inches. The knife that Peterson used to threaten Westfall was the same knife he had used to pry the stereo out of Johnson’s car.
¶6 A deputy advised Peterson of his Miranda
¶7 Deputy Ivanovich then inspected Johnson’s vehicle: The passenger-side window was smashed, the inside of the vehicle was ransacked, and the dashboard was damaged where the car stereo had been. The damage to Johnson’s car totaled approximately $2,000.
II. Procedure
¶8 The State charged Peterson with (1) one count of attempted robbery in the first degree while armed with a deadly weapon or, in the alternative, assault in the second
¶9 The trial court found Peterson guilty of (1) attempted robbery in the first degree while armed with a deadly weapon and (2) malicious mischief in the first degree while armed with a deadly weapon. In sentencing Peterson, the trial court imposed consecutive deadly weapon enhancements for the two counts.
¶10 Peterson appeals.
ANALYSIS
Sufficiency of Evidence
¶11 Peterson challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the deadly weapon enhancement for his malicious mischief conviction. Peterson admitted at trial that while inside Johnson’s car, he had used his three-inch knife to cut the wires to the stereo. But he argues that it does not meet the statutory definition of “deadly weapon” for sentencing enhancement purposes. We agree with Peterson that the record does not show that his use of the three-inch-bladed knife to cut the car stereo wires was in a manner “likely to produce or [might] easily and readily produce death,” sufficient to meet the statutory definition of a “deadly weapon” under RCW 9.94A.602.
A. Standard of Review
¶12 Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, it permits any rational trier of fact to find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992). “A claim of insufficiency admits the truth of the State’s evidence and all inferences that reasonably can be drawn therefrom.” Salinas, 119 Wn.2d at 201. Circumstantial evidence and direct evidence are equally reliable. State v. Delmarter, 94 Wn.2d 634, 638, 618 P.2d 99 (1980).
¶13 RCW 9.94A.602 provides, in pertinent part:
In a criminal case wherein there has been a special allegation and evidence establishing that the accused or an accomplice was armed with a deadly weapon at the time of the commission of the crime, the court shall make a finding of fact of whether or not the accused or an accomplice was armed with a deadly weapon at the time of the commission of the crime.
(Emphasis added.) There are two ways an instrument can qualify as a “deadly weapon” under this statute: (1) The instrument is specifically listed as a “deadly weapon” in 9.94A.602 or (2) the instrument “has the capacity to inflict death and from, the manner in which it is used, is likely to produce or may easily and readily produce death.” RCW 9.94A.602 (emphasis added). We address each in turn.
1. Per se deadly weapon
¶14 RCW 9.94A.602 lists the following instruments as automatic or per se “deadly weapons” for purposes of the deadly weapon sentencing enhancement:
Blackjack, sling shot, billy, sand club, sandbag, metal knuckles, any dirk, dagger, pistol, revolver, or any other firearm, any knife having a blade longer than three inches, any razor with an unguarded blade, any metal pipe or bar used or intended to be used as a club, any explosive, or any weapon containing poisonous or injurious gas.
(Emphasis added.) The trial court found and the State agrees that Peterson’s three-inch knife does not fall within this statutory list of per se deadly weapons.
2. Non-per se deadly weapon
¶15 Because the three-inch knife that Peterson used to damage Johnson’s car and to extract the stereo does not fall within the statutory list of per se deadly weapons, we focus on the second deadly weapon category—whether the knife Peterson used to remove the car’s stereo is an
¶16 The trial court concluded, and the State argues on appeal, that the three-inch knife Peterson used to extract the car stereo qualifies under this second “deadly weapon” category because (1) it had the capacity to inflict death and (2) Peterson’s manner of use could easily and readily have produced death. We acknowledge that this is a close question. But we have difficulty understanding how Peterson’s maimer of use could easily and readily have produced death where there was no other person in or near Johnson’s car while Peterson was using the knife to cut the stereo wires and to pry out the stereo in a deserted park and ride lot.
¶17 Moreover, although the trial court engaged in an extensive inquiry to determine whether Peterson possessed a deadly weapon during his subsequent robbery of West-fall,
¶18 RCW 9.94A.602 requires that if an instrument is not on the statute’s list of per se deadly weapons, then the instrument qualifies as “deadly weapon” only if (1) it has the capacity to inflict death and (2) the defendant uses it in a way likely to produce death or that may easily and readily produce death. Here, we assume, without deciding, that a knife with a three-inch blade has the capacity to inflict death, thus meeting the first criterion for a non-per se deadly weapon. Instead, we focus on the second non-per se deadly weapon criterion—the manner of the defendant’s use of the knife and the likelihood that its manner of use will easily and readily produce death.
¶19 This second criterion—“from the manner in which it is used, is likely to produce or may easily and readily produce death,” RCW 9.94A.602—implies the presence of another person against whom Peterson could have readily used the knife while committing the malicious mischief. But there is no evidence that any other person was present or nearby while Peterson was using the knife to cut the stereo wires or, from Peterson’s “manner of use” of the knife, that he would have used it to assault Westfall had he approached Peterson while still in Johnson’s car cutting the stereo wires.
¶20 On the contrary, when Westfall approached Johnson’s car, Peterson jumped out of the car, fled across the parking lot, and attempted to escape capture and confrontation by leaping into the bushes; Peterson did not threaten Westfall with the knife during his initial flight with the stereo. Not until the tangle of bushes thwarted Peterson’s escape and Westfall confronted him did Peterson threaten Westfall with the knife in an attempt to prevent Westfall from tackling him and reclaiming Johnson’s car stereo.
¶21 We agree with Peterson that (1) at the time he was using the knife to cut the stereo wires, there were no other
¶22 Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred in imposing a deadly weapon sentencing enhancement on the malicious mischief count. Therefore, we vacate the deadly weapon sentencing enhancement on count II, malicious mischief, and remand to the trial court to correct the judgment and sentence.
¶23 A majority of the panel having determined that only the foregoing portion of this opinion will be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports and that the remainder shall be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered.
Armstrong and Penoyar, JJ., concur.
We use Donnie’s first name for clarity. We intend no disrespect.
Peterson told the deputy that he had a second knife. And a subsequent pat-down search by responding Sheriff’s Deputy Mark Holden revealed a third knife in Peterson’s pocket. The State does not allege and the record does not show, however, that Peterson used or displayed either of these two other knives while committing the charged crimes.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966).
In determining whether Peterson possessed a deadly weapon during commission of the robbery, the trial court concluded that, under State v. Johnson, 155 Wn.2d 609, 610-11, 121 P.3d 91 (2005), robbery includes the use of force in an attempt to obtain or to retain possession of the stolen property. The trial court ruled that Peterson’s commission of the robbery was still ongoing when he confronted Westfall near the bushes because at that time Peterson was attempting to retain the stereo. Therefore, Peterson’s knife brandishing during the continuing commission of the robbery qualified the knife as a deadly weapon under RCW 9.94A.602. Peterson does not challenge this ruling on appeal.
The trial court stated:
Now, the second count was malicious mischief in the first degree. The evidence as to that count was essentially stipulated. There was no contrary evidence that the physical damage was in excess of $1,500 to the vehicle. This Court, finding that it was with a deadly weapon, will also find the defendant guilty as charged of Count 2 with the special weapons enhancement.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.