State Of Washington, Respondent V. N.j.s. Dob 7/9/1999

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
v.
NICHOLAS J. SPRINGFIELD,
B.D. 7/9/99,
Appellant.
No. 74000-8-1
GO
m
en
..T_. 	i
DIVISION ONE 5» 	C^rri
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
CO
FILED: September 26, 2016
Appelwick, J. — Springfield appeals his juvenile conviction of attempted
robbery in the first degree. 	He contends that the evidence presented at trial was
insufficient to sustain his conviction. 	He also contends that his federal and state
constitutional rights were violated when the trial court did not allow a jury trial for
his juvenile adjudication. 	Lastly, Springfield submitted a statement of additional
grounds for review in which he alleges judicial bias, prosecutorial misconduct, and
police misconduct. We affirm.
FACTS
M.S. left class at Ballard High School early on January 9, 2015 for an
appointment. M.S. walked through an alley that ledto the parking lot. He observed
three young men in the alley. Atthe time, M.S. was wearing a pair of headphones.
One of the young men in the alley approached him as he walked by. 	The young

No. 74000-8-1/2
man demanded M.S.'s headphones. 	He then removed a gun from his pants and
pressed it against M.S.'s leg. 	M.S. refused to hand over his headphones and
walked away to meet his mother in the school parking lot. 	M.S. later identified
Nicholas Springfield, a juvenile, as the attempted robber. 	M.S. estimated that he
was face-to-face with Springfield for approximately 10 seconds.
M.S. initially did not tell his mother about what had just occurred. 	Before
taking M.S. to his appointment, 	M.S. his mother drove to a 	nearby Goodwill
storeM.S., where M.S. told her about the attempted robbery. 	M.S.'s mother
immediately called the school. 	She and M.S. then spoke with Ballard security
guard Vilando Wynter via phone. 	During this conversation with Wynter, M.S.
stated the number of people present during the encounter and the location, but he
did 	not identify the individual who demanded the headphones. 	After a short
conversation, M.S. returned to school to meet with security.
M.S. 	met security near 	Ballard 	High. 	Seattle Police officers had had
detained Springfield and frisked him for weapons. The officers did not recover any
weapons.
The 	officers then 	met with Ballard High School Security Officer Craig
Plummer. 	M.S. testified that when he approached the officers and Plummer, he
observed Springfield in the custody of the officers. 	M.S. then identified Springfield
as the individual who attempted to rob him. M.S. testified that he recognized him
and 	knew his name from previous encounters. 	Springfield was charged with
attempted robbery.

No. 74000-8-1/3
At trial, 	M.S. 	identified Springfield as the individual that demanded his
headphones 	at gun 	point. 	The trial 	court found 	that M.S.'s testimony and
identification of Springfield was sufficiently reliable. 	Accordingly, the trial court
convicted Springfield of attempted robbery in the first degree. The court sentenced
Springfield 	to 	27 	weeks 	of 	commitment 	to 	the 	Juvenile 	Rehabilitation
Administration, 	and 	nine 	months 	of 	court-ordered 	supervision. 	Springfield
appeals.
DISCUSSION
Springfield makes three arguments on appeal. 	First, he argues that the
evidence at trial was insufficient to sustain a conviction for attempted robbery.
Second, he argues that the trial court violated his state and federal constitutional
rights by not permitting a jury trial for his juvenile proceeding. 	Third, he asserts
judicial bias, prosecutorial misconduct, and police misconduct.
I. 	Sufficient Evidence of Attempted First Degree Attempted Robbery
Springfield argues that the trial court erred in ruling that the evidence was
sufficient 	to 	sustain 	a 	conviction 	of 	attempted 	robbery 	in the 	first 	degree.
Specifically, Springfield argues that there was insufficient evidence to prove that
he was the person who committed the attempted robbery, and thus the prosecution
failed to carry its burden with respect to identity. Springfield asserts that, because
he was identified by only M.S. and M.S.'s credibility was called into question at
trial, the evidence was insufficient to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt.
When faced with a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court
asks whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of
3

No. 74000-8-1/4
the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Green. 94 Wn.2d 216, 221-22, 616
P.2d 628 (1980). 	In doing so, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to
the State. ]d. at 221. A claim of insufficient evidence admits the truth of the State's
evidence and all inferences that reasonably can be drawn therefrom. 	State v.
Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992). 	Credibility determinations
are for the trier of fact, and we do not review them on appeal. 	State v. Camarillo,
115 Wn.2d 60, 71, 794 P.2d 850 (1990).
A person 	commits 	robbery when 	he or she 	unlawfully takes personal
property from the person of another or in his or her presence against his or her will
by the use or threatened use of immediate force, violence, or fear of injury to that
person or his or her property. 	RCW 9A.56.190. A person is guilty of an attempt to
commit a crime if, with intent to commit a specific crime, he or she does any act
which is a substantial step toward the commission ofthat crime. 	RCW 9A.28.020.
A person commits a robbery in the first degree if the defendant is armed with a
deadly weapon or displays what appears to be a firearm or other deadly weapon.
RCW9A.56.200(1).
Springfield points to various portions ofthe record to support his argument
that the evidence presented was insufficient to support a conviction of attempted
robbery. 	First, Springfield cites M.S.'s conflicting accounts of whom he told first
about the attempted robbery. At the bench trial, M.S.'s testimony contained some
inconsistencies compared to his original statement to police. 	Most notably, M.S.
originally told police in a recorded statement that he saw a friend immediately prior
to the attempted robbery and told the friend to leave as Springfield approached
4

No. 74000-8-1/5
him. But, in his testimony, M.S. stated that he did not remember anyone else being
present in the alley at the time of the incident. 	M.S. also told police that he had
told a friend about the incident once they "were inside." During his testimony, M.S.
stated that the first person he told about the incident was his mother and that he
could not recall telling a friend about the incident. Springfield also notes that M.S.
testified that Springfield removed the gun from either his pocket or waistband. 	But,
there was evidence that the pants Springfield was wearing that day had pockets
that were too small and a waistband that was too flimsy to hold a gun.
Springfield claims that this identification was not reliable due to "the lack of
consistent evidence." 	This court will not second guess a fact-finder's credibility
determination. 	Camarillo, 115 Wn.2d at 71. 	We will not disturb the trial court's
finding that M.S.'s identification was credible.
Springfield 	next 	argues that Plummer, 	a 	Ballard 	High 	security guard,
deliberately facilitated 	a false identification 	of Springfield 	based on personal
disdain for Springfield. 	He points to Plummer's postarrest statement to N.J.S.,
" '[I'll] beatthe hell out of you,'" as evidence of this bias against N.J.S.1 	Plummer's
disdain for 	Springfield 	does 	not establish that a false identification 	by M.S.
occurred. 	No other evidence supports that theory. 	During his testimony, M.S.
specifically identified Springfield as the individual who attempted to rob him. 	M.S.
1 N.J.S. also argues that the trial judge's fully disclosed prior relationship
with a testifying detective warranted recusal. 	But, a prior relationship with a
witness 	would 	only 	be 	grounds 	for recusal 	if 	nonrecusal 	is " 'manifestly
unreasonable or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.' "
State v. Gentry. 183 Wn.2d 749, 763, 356 P.3d 714 (2015) (quoting Wilson v.
Horslev. 	137 Wn.2d 500, 	505, 	974 P.2d 316 (1999)). 	Nothing in the record
suggests that the trial court's actions were manifestly unreasonable.

No. 74000-8-1/6
testified that he knew N.J.S.'s name and 	physical appearance from 	previous
encounters. 	And, other witnesses testified that M.S. identified Springfield during
the meeting with police shortly after the attempted robbery took place. 	The trial
court found this testimony credible, and we will not disturb that finding.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, we hold that
sufficient evidence supports Springfield's conviction for attempted robbery in the
first degree.
II. 	Juvenile Right to Jury Trial
Springfield also argues that the trial court violated Springfield's federal and
state constitutional rights by not providing him with a trial by jury. He argues that
this violated both the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and article I
sections 21 and 22 of the Washington Constitution. 	In effect, this argument seeks
to invalidate RCW 13.04.021(2), which states that "[cjases in the juvenile court
shall be tried without a jury." 	In support of this argument, N.J.S. asserts that
consequences of juvenile adjudications have become "nearly indistinguishable"
from adult adjudications, and therefore require a trial by jury.
Whether a juvenile is constitutionally entitled to a trial by jury is a question
of law that we review de novo. 	State v. Womac. 160 Wn.2d 643, 649, 160 P.3d
40 (2007). 	The Washington Supreme Court addressed this question in State v.
Chavez. 163 Wn.2d 262, 272, 180 P.3d 1250(2008). In that case, Chavez argued
that juvenile offenders have a right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment to the
United 	States 	Constitution 	and 	under 	article 	I, sections 	21 	and 	22 	of 	the
Washington State Constitution. 	\± at 266. 	The court unequivocally rejected this
6

No. 74000-8-1/7
argument. Id at 272. 	It reasoned that while punishment is the paramount purpose
of the adult criminal system, the policies of the Juvenile Justice Act (JJA), ch. 13.40
RCW, are twofold: to establish a system of having primary responsibility for, being
accountable for, and responding to the needs of youthful offenders, and to hold
juveniles accountable for their offenses, 	jd at 267-68. 	Springfield's arguments
are nearly identical to those made by Chavez. Although he asserts that the juvenile
justice system has become similar to the adult criminal system such that a jury trial
is required, Chavez still controls. 	Under Chavez, juveniles do not have a right to
a jury trial under the Washington Constitution. 	\± at 272. 	The trial court did not
err in denying Springfield a jury trial.2
III. 	Statement of Additional Grounds for Review
Springfield makes three additional arguments in a statement of additional
grounds for review. 	First, he argues that the trial court's findings were a result of
a bias against Springfield. 	Second, he argues that the prosecution engaged in
prosecutorial misconduct by presenting testimony that contradicted a videotape
recording. 	Third, he argues that the police failed to properly investigate verbal
abuse by Plummer and therefore his conviction should be overturned.
A. 	Judicial Bias
Springfield claims that a handful ofthe trial court's determinations reflect a
judicial bias that influenced the trial court's findings. 	First, he claims that the trial
2 We 	also 	note 	that, 	contrary to 	Springfield's arguments, 	the 	Sixth
Amendment to the United States Constitution does not require a jury trial in juvenile
proceedings. 	McKeiver v. Pennsylvania. 403 U.S. 528, 545, 91 S. Ct. 1976, 29 L.
Ed. 2d 647 (1971): see also United States v. Juvenile. 228 F.3d 987, 990 (9th Cir.
2000).

No. 74000-8-1/8
court's finding that Wynter was not credible is evidence of bias. 	Wynter testified
at a CrR 3.5 hearing regarding Springfield's willingness to speak with police.
Although the trial court stated during a colloquy with counsel that it did not find
Wynter credible, the court ultimately ruled in Springfield's favor on this issue. 	The
court 	relied 	on 	a 	videotape 	recording 	in 	suppressing 	Springfield's 	later
incriminating statements. Given that the trial court ruled in favor of Springfield and
suppressed his statements, there is no evidence of bias with respect to the CrR
3.5 hearing. Moreover, a trial court's credibility determination alone is not sufficient
to prove judicial bias, especially given that the trial court ruled in favor of Springfield
on the ultimate CrR 3.5 issue. 	In re Pers. Restraint of Davis. 152 Wn.2d 647, 692,
101 P.3d 1 (2004) ("Judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid showing
of bias.").
B. 	Prosecutorial Misconduct
Springfield 	also claims that the prosecution committed misconduct by
presenting false testimony. 	He asserts that the substance of a police video
recording 	is 	indisputable, 	and 	because 	M.S.'s 	testimony 	contradicted 	an
indisputable videotape recording, we must disregard it. 	According to Springfield,
the videotape establishes that Plummer secretly suggested to M.S. that he identify
Springfield as the individual who robbed him.
A conviction obtained by the knowing use of perjured testimony must be set
aside if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have
affected the judgment of the fact-finder. 	State v. Larson. 160 Wn. App. 577, 594,
249 P.3d 669 (2011). 	But, Springfield has not designated the videotape as part of
8

No. 74000-8-1/9
the appellate record. Therefore, we cannot consider his prosecutorial misconduct
arguments. 	State v. Wade. 	138 Wn.2d 460, 465, 979 P.2d 850 (1999) ("An
appellate court may decline to address a claimed error when faced with a material
omission in the record.").
C. 	Police Misconduct
Finally, Springfield argues that his conviction should be overturned because
police failed to report or investigate a threat by Plummer against Springfield.
Shortly following his arrest, Plummer told Springfield that he "want[ed] to beat the
hell out of you," or something similar. 	Even 	assuming 	Plummer's statement
amounted to a crime, Springfield has failed to demonstrate how the police's failure
to investigate is material to his case, let alone is grounds for reversal of his
conviction.
We affirm.
WE CONCUR:
*L 	•^i 	-x--^