_¢-,! _, r':’ iii if fritz ir~‘c.:iwm`f?‘ w sr iii>.siiiiisiss tilleiU\l 13 Al~l 8= 148 |N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF VVASH¥NGTON STA'E'E OF WASH!NGTON, ) ) No. 76296-6-| Responder'it1 ) ) DlVlSlON Ol\EE v. ) ) UNF’UBL!SHED OPli\liON DEREK CLlNTON YATES, ) ) Appeiiant. ) FiLED: Novembef 13, 2018 )

BECKER, J. - Appellani Derek Yates was convicted of theft in the first degree The victim, Eleanor Ludwig, Was an octogenerian suffering from dementia. She initially hired Yetes as a handyman. Over time their financial affairs became intertwined, and Yates obtained aimost $300,000 of i_udwig's money. We conclude the evidence Was sufficient to prove theft.

Eleanor Ludwig Was born in 1928. According to testimony at trial, she earned her living as a schooiteacher. Having a shrewd mind for business, Ludwig accumuiated a portfoiio of rentai properties in the Seattle area. She owned 15 properties as of 2012.

Ludwig’s friends and famiiy began to notice a decline in her mentai faculties around the time of her husband’s death in 2010. E_udwig increasingly became confused and anxious i-ler office and desk--formerly neatly organized-became messy and cluttered With piles of unfiled papers NO. 76296-6-|/2 ln 2011 Ludwig met Yates Yates initialiy worked for her as a handyman, Ludwig’s granddaughter, who saw her regularly, noticed that as time went on, Yates’s role progressed beyond that of a simple handyman. He became a fixture in Ludwig's life and the focus of her conversations Ludwig was observed to be paying him in cash, contrary to her usual practice Between August 2011 and March 2012, i_udwig and Yates purchased three condominiums together. They were both listed on the titles, though t.udwig paid the full purchase price. Yates renovated the units and collected rent. ln February 2012, Yates’s requests for money increased dramatically Ludwig began dipping into her savings to satisfy Yates’s demands Ludwig’s friends and famin became alarmed ln September 2012, i_udwig’s granddaughter exercised her power of attorney to stop any further payments to Yates She contacted the Auburn Po|ice Department. i-leaith care professionals interviewed Ludwig and concluded that she was suffering from dementia. The State charged Yates with one count of theft in the first degree in i\/iarch 2015. The jury was instructed on two alternative means of theft: that \’ates “wrongfully obtained" property belonging to Ludwig, or that he obtained control over her property by “co|or and aid of deception." The State was required to prove that the property exceeded $5,000 in vaiue.

Ludwig’s severe dementia prevented her from testifying at the trial. The State relied on testimony from friends, family, and financial experts to prove that Yates obtained Ludwig's money by theft The jury convicted Yates as charged and found as an aggravating factor that he knew or should have known that NO. 76296-6-|/3 Ludwig was particularly vuinerab|e. VVith the aggravating factor, the sentence was a prison term of 26 months Yates contends the evidence was insufficient to prove either means of theft i-le argues that without testimony from Ludwig, “the best the State could prove was that Nir. Yates received a substantial amount of money from |Vis.

Ludwig." According to Yates1 Ludwig’s dementia accelerated oniy after his arrest and she displayed minimal symptoms during the charging period of September 2, 2011 to September 5, 2012. f-le argues there is nothing but speculation to support the allegation that he took advantage of Ludwig.

The test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence is whether, after viewing the evidence in the fight most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found guiit beyond a reasonabie doubt. State v. Salinas, 119 VVn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992). A claim of insufficiency admits the truth of the State’s evidence and atl inferences that reasonably can he drawn therefrom. Saiinas, 119 Wn.2d at 201. V\Ihen viewed in the light rnost favorable

to the State, the evidence and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom teii a different story. “i“he evidence showed that Ludwig suffered from dementia during the charging period On Septemt)er 12, 2012, John Ramsdei|, a geriatric mental health crisis assessor, conducted an evaluation of Ludwig. Ramsdeli assigned Ludwig a score of 14 out of 30, indicating Ludwig Was suffering from moderate to severe dementia. i-le described the test at triai and testified that Ludwig No. 76296-6-|/4 struggled with tasks such as simple arithmetic, naming animals1 and memory exercises Rarnsde|l’s diagnosis was consistent with testimony by Ludwig’s friends and family They gave exampies of Ludwig’s confusion in the eariy months of 2012, including forgetting her first husband forgetting that her daughter had passed away, and getting lost on her way to a friend’s house.

The State's financial analyst determined that, of a total of $297,125 Yates obtained from Ludwig, oniy $42,836 could be attributed to material related to his renovation activities More than $150,000 in cash was withdrawn frorn Yates’s bank accounts with no documentation or receipts When receipts were availabie, they showed that Yates spent i_udwig’s money on water parks casinos, and retaii shopping A vintage truck, purchased by Yates with a “loan” from Ludwig that was supposed to be paid back, was not found and the loan was never repaid The jury heard testimony that Ludwig was fearfui of Yates and that Vates acted aggressiveiy when it came to obtaining money from Ludwig. The jury also heard testimony that Ludwig couid not remember giving Yates as much money as she did and that she became confused and upset when shown her financiai records Ludwig’s tenants testified that Yates began coi|ecting rent on Ludwig’s behalf 'i'his rental income was never delivered to Ludwig.

The evidence described above was sufficient to lead a reasonable fact finder to conciude that Yates wrongfully obtained more than $5,000 of Ludwig’s property To “wrongfuily obtain" means to take without consent The argument NO. 76296-6-|/5 that property once voluntariiy given, cannot be stolen, “is inconsistent with our case iaw." State v. Woodlyn, 188 Wn.2d 157, 168, 392 P.3d 1062 (2017). As one example, Yates spent $5,200 of Ludwig’s money for a travel trailer, then got the money back and never returned it to Ludwig. A jury could find the money was obtained wrongfully because it should have been returned and was not. The evidence was also sufficient to prove that Yates used deception to obtain large amounts of cash from Ludwig. As one examp|e, he toid her $25,000 was needed to fix a black mold problem in one of her properties `l'he black mold probiem was fictional. Ajury could find that Yates deceived Ludwig into giving him money to fix a probiem and then keeping the money for his personai use.

Yates contends it is uncertain that the jury verdict was unanimous as to the means by which he committed theft. “But in alternative means cases where substantial evidence supports both aiternative means submitted to the jury1 unanimity as to the means is not required." State v. Armstrong, 188 Wn.2d 333, 340, 394 F’.3d 373 (2017). Because both alleged means of theft were proved by substantial evidence, there was no problem related to the requirement for juror unanimity Affirmed. B€CK€€\ q/ `

WE CONCUR: arise ‘