What Evidence is Needed for a Guilty Decision in a Gun Case in Washington?

Firearm convictions can result in the loss of significant liberties. As with any criminal matter, though, the State must prove each element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt to obtain a conviction, and if it does not, it may constitute a violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights. Recently, a Washington state court issued a ruling in which it explained what is considered adequate evidence to establish unlawful possession of a firearm in a case in which the defendant sought relief from personal restraint following convictions for multiple crimes.

In Washington, when a person is charged with a weapons crime, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed each element of the offense. Typically, the prosecution will rely on circumstantial evidence, such as statements regarding the defendant’s whereabouts or discussions with the defendant regarding the weapons in order to prove its case. Thus, if a defendant can attack the validity of the prosecution’s evidence, it may weaken its case, but such efforts are not always successful. This was demonstrated in a recent Washington case in which the court affirmed the defendant’s convictions for firearm-related offenses despite the defendant’s arguments that the prosecution’s evidence should have been precluded at trial. If you are charged with unlawfully owning or possessing a firearm, it is advisable to speak with a skillful Washington gun crime defense attorney to discuss your case.

Evidence Needed to Show Unlawful Firearm Possession in Washington

A person is guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm if he or she has a firearm in his or her possession, following a conviction of any serious offense. Under Washington law, possession can be actual or constructive. Constructive possession can be shown by demonstrating that the defendant had control and dominion over the firearm or over the premises where the firearm was found. The court will assess the entirety of the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the firearm to determine whether the defendant had dominion and control, and no single factor is determinative. Evidence that a defendant had personal possessions at the premises, or stayed there temporarily, is insufficient to show dominion and control.

Sufficient Proof of Possession of a Real Firearm

Under Washington law, possession of a gun may be constructive or actual. Actual possession refers to a gun being in the personal custody of the person charged with possessing it, while constructive possession occurs when a person has control or dominion over a gun, but it is not in their actual physical possession.

A person may be deemed to have dominion if he or she has the ability to take actual possession of a gun. Control and dominion are determined by a totality of the circumstances, and no single factor is determinative.

Proof of Gun Possession in Cases Where There is a Prior Conviction

People who are not legally permitted to own guns may face weapons charges even if they are not physically caught with a firearm.

In Washington, people convicted of felony offenses typically lose the right to own firearms. Thus, if a person who is not permitted to own a gun is found with one in his or her possession, it may result in additional charges. As possession is a key element of many weapons offenses, if the State cannot produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate a defendant actually had a weapon, the defendant should not be found guilty.

Constructive vs. Actual Possession of a Weapon

The State does not actually have to catch a person holding a gun to convict them of unlawfully possessing a weapon.

In a recent Washington case, the State may be able to obtain a conviction for a firearms charge by demonstrating constructive rather than actual possession. If you are a Washington resident currently charged with a weapons crime, it is prudent to speak to a dedicated Washington gun crime defense attorney regarding your rights.

Factual History

It is reported that the police received a tip that the defendant, who was a convicted felon, was in possession of firearms in violation of the law. As such, an officer visited the home where the defendant lived with his girlfriend. She allowed him to enter and search the premises and stated that while she owned guns, they were all locked in a safe. While she had the only key to the safe, she sometimes left it hanging in her bedroom. The officer observed the safe, which contained one more gun than reported and also saw a holster with a pistol in it hanging from a bedpost. The girlfriend admitted this was the defendant’s gun. The defendant was subsequently charged with six counts of unlawful possession of a firearm, and following a trial was convicted on all counts. He then appealed.

On appeal, the defendant argued in part that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that he possessed the firearms within the gun safe, which were the basis for five of his charges. The court explained that in appeals challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, all evidence must be reviewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, but circumstantial and direct evidence should be afforded the same weight. When a party claims the evidence is insufficient, though, they admit the truth of the evidence and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from it.

The appellate court explained that the subject case involved constructive, rather than actual possession. Under Washington law, constructive possession is proven when the defendant had control and dominion over the firearms or the premises where the firearms were located. Neither the control nor the dominion needs to be exclusive; however, close proximity to the guns in and of itself is not adequate to prove constructive possession. Upon reviewing the evidence of the case, the court found it sufficient to sustain the defendant’s conviction. As such, it denied the appeal.

Another Case Involving Constructive Unlawful Possession of a Weapon

in a recent Washington opinion in which the court affirmed the defendant’s conviction for unlawfully possessing a gun. If you are accused of a firearms offense, it is advisable to consult a Washington weapons charges defense lawyer to discuss your options for seeking a favorable outcome.

Facts of the Case

Allegedly, the defendant took his girlfriend to the hospital after she was shot in the back. He ran into the emergency department screaming that she had a gunshot wound and then immediately left the building. He later returned and reported that they were cleaning, and he heard a pop and saw that his girlfriend had fallen to the floor. He later reported that he accidentally shot her.

It is reported that the State charged the defendant, a convicted felon, with assault with a deadly weapon and unlawful possession of a firearm. A jury convicted him, after which he appealed, arguing in part that the State lacked sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction for the weapons charge.

Evidence of Unlawful Possession of a Weapon

On appeal, the defendant argued that there was no eyewitness testimony that he was seen with a firearm on or around the date of the incident, and no gun was found during a search of his car or home. The court noted, though, that the victim stated the defendant had been in possession of a gun a month before the incident, and she was shot in her home when only she and the defendant were present.

Further, a 9 mm shell was found near where she was shot, and the doctor that tended to her in the emergency room indicated that she had been shot by a bullet that was 9 mm or smaller. The court explained that circumstantial and direct evidence is equally reliable, and the courts defer to the fact finder on issues of witness credibility, conflicting testimony, and the persuasiveness of evidence. Here, the court found that the evidence presented at trial was adequate for a reasonable jury to convict the defendant of unlawful possession of a firearm. Thus, it denied his appeal as to his conviction for that charge.

Court Explains Sufficiency of Evidence in Washington Firearm Theft Case

n any case in which the State charges a defendant with theft of a firearm, the State must introduce adequate evidence of the charge to support a conviction. If a defendant is subsequently convicted and appeals on the grounds of insufficient evidence, the defendant effectively admits the truth of the State’s evidence but argues the evidence introduced by the State was insufficient to support a conviction. This was explained in a recent Washington appellate court case in which the court affirmed the defendant’s convictions for burglary and theft of a firearm. If you are charged with theft of a firearm or any other weapons charge it is critical to engage a knowledgeable Washington weapons charge defense attorney to help you develop a strong defense.

Factual Background of the Case

Allegedly, the defendant and his girlfriend lived in a shed on a female friend’s property. The defendant rented a storage unit, in which he and his girlfriend and female friend stored their belongings and stolen property. Shortly after the defendant began renting the unit, someone broke into three other storage units in the same property. A six-foot high fence surrounded the property, and an access code was required to open the gate. An investigation revealed that the defendant’s unique code had been used to enter the property ten times over three days.

It is further reported that security footage showed the defendant and his female friend exiting a car near the storage units that were robbed. One of the storage units that was burglarized held a gun safe that contained eight firearms. All of the firearms were missing following the burglary, and none were recovered. The defendant was charged with two counts of burglary, theft of a firearm, and unlawful possession of a firearm. The defendant was convicted of all charges except unlawful possession of a firearm. He subsequently appealed, arguing there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction.

Review of Sufficiency of the Evidence

In any case where a defendant argues the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction, the court views the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, to assess whether any rational finder of fact could have found sufficient evidence of the elements of the crime alleged, to convict the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. The court explained that when a defendant alleges insufficient evidence, he or she admits the truth of the evidence submitted and any reasonable inferences that can be made from the evidence, but argues any evidence or inference is not enough to support a conviction. Further, any inferences will be construed in favor of the State and against the defendant.

Upon review of the evidence submitted in the subject case, the court found that the evidence was adequate to support the defendant’s conviction, rejecting the defendant’s argument that because there was no direct evidence of the crimes, he could not be convicted. Specifically, the court found that the State presented evidence, including testimony from the defendant’s female friend, that the defendant stole a gun safe, pried it open, and removed the guns. As such, the court affirmed the defendant’s conviction.

The Court Reverses Washington Firearm Conviction Due to Use of Profile Evidence

If a defendant is charged with possessing a stolen firearm the State must provide evidence showing that the defendant possessed a stolen firearm and acted with knowledge that the firearm was stolen. If the State does not have strong enough evidence to show the defendant actually knew the firearm he or she possessed was stolen in most cases, the State may try to rely on profile testimony in support of the charge. This was illustrated in a recent Washington appellate case, where a defendant’s conviction for possession of a stolen firearm was overturned after the State relied on testimony that because the defendant was a convicted felon he was more likely to possess a stolen firearm. If you are charged with a firearm crime in Washington it is critical to retain a seasoned Washington weapons charge defense attorney to assist you in precluding any evidence the State should not be permitted to introduce against you.

Facts Regarding the Crime and Trial

Allegedly, in June 2015, the defendant was confronted by a police officer pursuant to an outstanding warrant. The defendant ran away from the officer and threw a gun while he was running. The officer ultimately apprehended the defendant and retrieved the gun, which was reported stolen in October 2014. The defendant, who was a convicted felon, was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm and possession of a stolen firearm.

It is reported that during the trial, the State introduced testimony from multiple police officers regarding how convicted felons obtain guns. The officers each testified that “they” will steal them or buy them off the street. Further, the prosecuting attorney in his closing argument stated that it would be impossible to prove the defendant had actual knowledge that the gun was stolen, but “that’s how these guys are getting them.” The defendant was convicted of both charges after which he appealed the possession of a stolen firearm charge.

Profile Testimony Under Washington Law

To convict a defendant of possession of a stolen firearm the State must show that the defendant knew the gun was stolen. The State does not have to prove actual knowledge but must show that the defendant should have had notice that the gun was stolen. On appeal, the defendant argued that the State relied on improper profile testimony to prove he knew the gun was stolen. Washington defines profile testimony as testimony that indicates a person is a part of a class that is more likely to commit a crime. In other words, in using profile evidence, the State attempts to convict a defendant on evidence outside of the facts of the case by identifying traits the defendant has in common with other people who commit the same crime.

The court noted that there is no rule expressly permitting or prohibiting profile testimony and that some courts allow it in limited circumstances. The court cautioned, however, that it cannot be used as proof of guilt, because that risks the defendant being convicted based on what other people have done. Ultimately, the court found that the profile testimony impermissibly sought to convict the defendant based on the actions of other people and was therefore improper. Thus, the court reversed the defendant’s possession of a stolen firearm conviction.

A Recent Example Involving Evidence Obtained in a Police Sweep

It is reported that the defendant was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm as well as with being a felon in possession of ammunition, both of which were federal crimes. Following his trial, he was convicted by a jury. He then appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence found during a search of his home and in admitting evidence of his prior bad acts. The appellate court denied the defendant’s appeal, affirming his conviction.

Evidence Admissible at a Trial for Weapons Charges

First, the court explained that the officer’s entry into the defendant’s home was lawful as it was done in response to a 911 call. Further, the court rejected the defendant’s argument that the officer did not have authority to enter his home or search the surrounding hillside for weapons, and that the evidence found during the search should be suppressed.

Specifically, the court explained that the law permitted the officer to conduct a protective sweep, which is a cursory inspection of the places a person might be found. As the defendant told the officer that an armed militia member was in the area, it warranted a reasonably prudent officer in the area to believe the area harbors a dangerous individual. As the officer was within his authority in performing the sweep, he could also seize incriminating evidence that was found in plain sight.

Further, the court found that the trial court did not err in allowing evidence of the defendant’s pistol-whipping of his ex-girlfriend prior to committing the alleged offense to be introduced at trial. The court explained that such evidence was inextricably intertwined with the charged offense and therefore was both relevant and permissible. As such, the defendant’s conviction was affirmed.

A Case Involving Weapons Evidence Obtained During a Narcotics Warrant

In a recent Washington appellate case, the court discussed what evidence the State must produce to obtain a conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm. If you reside in Washington and are charged with unlawful possession of a weapon or any other firearms charges, it is in your best interest to meet with a trusted Washington gun crime attorney to discuss what evidence may be used against you.

Factual and Procedural History

Allegedly, police officers searched the home of the defendant pursuant to a search warrant that covered narcotics and firearms. The officers asked the defendant if there were any firearms in the home. He replied that there were, indicating that there were .380 and .45 caliber guns. During the search, the officers found both guns. The defendant was transported to the police station, where he advised the police of a storage unit that held additional guns. The police obtained a warrant to search the unit, and during the subsequent search, they found six firearms. The defendant was charged with multiple crimes, including two counts of possession of a stolen firearm and eight counts of unlawful possession of a firearm.

It is reported that during the trial, the court advised the jury that for each count of unlawful possession, the jury must find that the defendant knowingly had a firearm, and provided the serial number, make, and caliber of each firearm. The jury found the defendant guilty of all counts of unlawful possession of a firearm, and one possession of a stolen firearm count. The defendant appealed on numerous grounds, including the assertions that the State failed to show beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed the firearms and that the State was required to prove that he knew the serial number of each firearm to obtain a conviction.

Sufficiency of Evidence of Possession of a Firearm

The defendant argued that pursuant to the jury instructions, the State was required to prove that the defendant knew the serial number of each gun he was charged with possessing. The defendant further argued that because the State did not offer such proof, the defendant should not have been convicted. The court rejected this argument, finding that the State’s burden of proof was merely to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was knowingly in possession of each firearm. The court explained that in examining whether a person has control and dominion over something, it must examine the totality of the circumstances. Factors assessed include whether a person has the capability of actually possessing the object, and the proximity of the person to the object. In the subject case, the court found that the State produced evidence sufficient to meet its burden of proof. As such, the court affirmed the trial court ruling.

Washington Court Discusses Sufficient Proof of Possession a Real Firearm

People convicted of felonies often lose the right to own weapons, and the mere act of possessing a firearm can result in significant penalties. The State must prove each element of a charged firearm offense through competent evidence, though, and if it cannot, it should not be able to obtain a conviction. Recently, a Washington court assessed what constitutes sufficient proof of possession of a real firearm, in an opinion arising out of an appeal of an unlawful possession conviction. If you are accused of illegally owning a gun, it is in your best interest to consult a skilled Washington weapons charge defense attorney to assess your rights.

The Defendant’s Arrest and Trial

It is reported that a police officer approached a car that was parked in a closed parking lot. There were two people sitting in the front seats, and the defendant was sitting alone in the back seat. The officer noticed a semiautomatic weapon on the floor of the car by the defendant’s feet. The defendant would not keep his hands in view, after which he was removed from the car. The officer obtained consent to search the vehicle and retrieved the gun.

Allegedly, he then obtained a warrant and found a holster for the gun under a blanket in the backseat, illicit substances, and paraphernalia related to the sale of illegal drugs. The defendant was charged with multiple gun and drug crimes. He was convicted, after which he appealed, arguing in part that there was insufficient evidence to prove that he was in possession of an actual firearm.

Here, the court found that there was more than enough evidence to prove that the defendant had constructive possession of the gun.

The court also disregarded the defendant’s argument that the State failed to prove the gun was real. The court noted that while the State erred in failing to introduce the gun into evidence, the circumstantial evidence demonstrated that the gun that was found in the car with the defendant was handled and tested by the police and found to be an operable firearm. Thus, the defendant’s convictions were affirmed.

Another Example Involving Gun Possession Charges by a Convicted Felon

Recently, a Washington court set forth an opinion discussing what evidence is needed to demonstrate possession of a weapon in a case in which the defendant argued his conviction was improper. If you are charged with a weapons crime, it is in your best interest to meet with a knowledgeable Washington criminal defense lawyer to discuss your possible defenses.

The Defendant’s Charges

It is reported that police were working with detectives to investigate drug crimes. They ultimately obtained a warrant to search the home of the defendant, and during their search, found a sawed-off shotgun and two other weapons. The defendant was subsequently charged with multiple crimes, including unlawful possession of a firearm and unlawful possession of an illegal firearm. He moved to suppress the evidence obtained in the search at trial, but his motion was denied. He was ultimately convicted of the charged offenses by a jury, after which he appealed.

Evidence Needed to Establish Possession of a Weapon

On appeal, the defendant argued, in part, that the State failed to produce adequate evidence to convict him of unlawful possession of firearms. Specifically, he asserted that the evidence presented at trial merely showed that he was in the proximity of guns seized by law enforcement. The appellate court disagreed and affirmed his conviction.

The court explained that a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is governed by a very deferential standard of review. In other words, if the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the state would lead a rational person to find the essential elements of the crime, it will be deemed adequate.

In the subject case, the court found that the evidence as a whole provided a substantial basis for the conclusion that the defendant was in constructive possession of the guns in question. The court explained that constructive possession need not be exclusive. Evidence that other people’s fingerprints were on the guns or that another person lived in the basement where the guns were found merely suggested that someone else used them as well. Thus, the defendant’s conviction was affirmed.

A Washington Court Upholds Firearm Charge Conviction Due to Cumulative Evidence

Recently, a Washington appellate court upheld a defendant’s conviction, finding that his attorney’s failure to object to the state’s admission of written statements regarding his alleged firearm crimes did not constitute a prejudicial error. If you face charges of a weapons crime, you should meet with a skilled Washington weapons charge defense attorney who will fight vigorously to preclude any evidence the state should not be permitted to introduce against you.

Facts Regarding the Alleged Crime and Investigation

Reportedly, the defendant stayed at his brother’s apartment on occasion. The defendant did not have a key to the apartment and was only permitted in the apartment with his brother’s permission. The defendant was one of few people who knew his brother owned a gun and where it was stored. The defendant’s brother came home one evening to find his apartment window broken and his gun missing. He contacted the police and advised them as to what had occurred, and also claimed that his brother was the likely suspect. He provided the police with a written statement as well. The defendant allegedly texted his brother, asking why he was a suspect and stating he was only borrowing the gun and intended to return it.

Allegedly, the defendant’s brother found the gun in a plastic bag on the handle of his front door a few weeks later. He contacted the police and provided them with a second written statement. The defendant was subsequently charged with and convicted of first-degree burglary, theft of a firearm, and second-degree unlawful possession of a firearm. The defendant appealed his conviction, arguing that his attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel due to his failure to object to the introduction of his brother’s written statements at trial. On appeal, the court affirmed.

The Defendant’s Attorney’s Failure to Object to the Admission of Written Statements as Evidence

On appeal, the court noted that the defendant’s brother’s testimony at trial was consistent with the information in his written statements. His written statements were entered into evidence by the prosecution, without objection. Further, the investigating officer testified regarding the information she received from the defendant’s brother during both occasions when he contacted the police. The court stated that to determine whether the defendant’s attorney’s failure to object to the admission of the written statements constituted ineffective counsel depended, in part, on whether the failure resulted in prejudice to the defendant. Here, the court found that to the extent the defendant’s attorney erred in failing to object to the statements, the error was not prejudicial, as the information contained in the statements was already presented to the jury in the form of the testimony of the defendant’s brother and the investigating officer. The court held that the unnecessary introduction of cumulative evidence did not constitute a reversible error. Thus, the court affirmed the defendant’s conviction.

An Example Involving a Possession of a Firearm by a Defendant Under Dept. of Corrections Supervision

When a person is convicted of a crime in Washington, in addition to any sentence or fines imposed following the conviction, the person may lose the right to possess a firearm. Thus, if the person is subsequently found to be in possession of a firearm he or she may be charged with unlawful possession of a firearm. A Washington court of appeals recently discussed what constitutes sufficient evidence of possession, in a case in which it overturned a conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm. If you were charged with unlawful possession of a firearm, you should consult a capable Washington criminal defense attorney proficient in handling firearm cases to discuss what evidence the State may introduce against you.

Discovery of the Firearm

Reportedly, the defendant was under Department of Corrections supervision. The terms of his supervision required him to provide a valid address. The defendant reported he was living with his girlfriend, after which the defendant’s supervising community corrections officer conducted a routine home search. The father of the defendant’s girlfriend was the only person home during the search and confirmed that the defendant had recently moved into the home. Additionally, there was clothing that appeared to belong to a man throughout the home, including clothing the defendant had been observed wearing. During the search, the officer found a firearm in the living room. DNA testing revealed that the defendant’s fingerprint was on the firearm. The defendant was subsequently charged with and found guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm.

Sufficiency of Evidence of Possession of a Firearm

Here, the court noted that the defendant had indicated the subject premises was his place of residence. Further, he had previously been observed at that location, and his clothing was observed there. Thus, in viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, the court found that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude that the defendant had dominion and control over the premises. As such, the defendant’s conviction was affirmed.

An Example from 2017

It is reported that in 2017, the defendant was convicted of three counts of assault and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm. Personal restraint was imposed following his convictions. In 2020, the defendant sought relief from his personal restraint, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove he was guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm and that his conviction and the firearm enhancements on his assault convictions violated his protections against double jeopardy. The court ultimately rejected the defendant’s arguments and denied his request for relief.

Evidence Sufficient to Establish Guilt in Gun Crime Cases

First, the court discussed the defendant’s allegations that the evidence was insufficient to prove his guilt with regard to the firearm charge. The court explained that evidence in criminal cases is sufficient to prove culpability if, after it is viewed in the light most favorable to the State, any rational factfinder could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the elements of a crime were present.

In the subject case, the court noted that three separate witnesses saw the defendant fire a gun. Thus, the court found that the testimony presented at trial constituted sufficient evidence that the defendant possessed an operable firearm in violation of the law. The court also rejected the defendant’s argument that his firearm conviction and the firearm enhancements to the sentences for his assault conviction violated double jeopardy, simply stating they did not. Last, the court spurned the defendant’s argument that his offender score was incorrect. In sum, the court found that the defendant did not set forth evidence sufficient to show that there were any grounds for relief from personal restraint. Therefore, the court denied the defendant’s petition as well as his request for the appointment of counsel.

Our Firearm Defense Attorneys Can Help

Simply because the State charges a person with a gun crime does not mean that there is adequate evidence to obtain a conviction. If you are charged with illegally owning a gun, the seasoned Washington weapons charge defense attorneys of The Law Offices of Smith & White can assess the circumstances surrounding your arrest and advise you of what arguments you may be able to set forth in your defense. You can reach us via our online form or by calling (253) 203-1645 to set up a conference.