* State of Washington v. Christopher Bacon

NOTICE: SLIP OPINION
(not the court’s final written decision)
The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the
written opinions that are originally filed by the court.
A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions
can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an
order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential
purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion. Additionally, nonsubstantive edits
(for style, grammar, citation, format, punctuation, etc.) are made before the
opinions that have precedential value are published in the official reports of court
decisions: the Washington Reports 2d and the Washington Appellate Reports. An
opinion in the official reports replaces the slip opinion as the official opinion of
the court.
The slip opinion that begins on the next page is for a published opinion, and it
has since been revised for publication in the printed official reports. The official
text of the court’s opinion is found in the advance sheets and the bound volumes
of the official reports. Also, an electronic version (intended to mirror the
language found in the official reports) of the revised opinion can be found, free of
charge, at this website: https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports.
For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential
(unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
v.
CHRISTOPHER BACON,
Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 37232-4-III
PUBLISHED OPINION
STAAB , J. — Christopher Bacon was found guilty of possession of a stolen vehicle
and making or possessing a motor vehicle theft tool. On appeal, he challenges only the
second conviction because the information omitted the crime’s intent element. The State
concedes and agrees the conviction should be reversed but maintains that it should be
dismissed without prejudice. We hold that mens rea is an essential element of making or
possessing motor vehicle theft tools under RCW 9A.56.063(1), reverse the challenged
conviction, and dismiss it without prejudice.
FACTS
Mr. Bacon was a front-seat passenger in a stolen 1991 Honda Accord when a
police officer stopped the car. The driver and Mr. Bacon were ordered out of the vehicle,
detained, and frisked. Mr. Bacon had a brass-colored metal punch commonly used to
FILED
MARCH 2, 2021
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 37232-4-III
State v. Bacon
2
break vehicle windows in his front pocket. A search incident to Mr. Bacon’s arrest
revealed a key ring of shaved keys on the front passenger seat of the car, a shaved GM
key in the ignition, and more shaved keys on the key ring attached to the GM key.
Another shaved key was discovered in one of Mr. Bacon’s back pockets.
Mr. Bacon was charged by information with felony possession of a stolen motor
vehicle and the gross misdemeanor charge of making or possessing a motor vehicle theft
tool. A jury convicted him of both counts.
ANALYSIS
For the first time on appeal, Mr. Bacon contends that the information was
constitutionally deficient as to the charge of possessing motor vehicle theft tools because
it failed to include the necessary intent element of the crime. While the general rule
prohibits raising an issue for the first time on appeal, an exception applies for a “manifest
error affecting a constitutional right.” RAP 2.5(a). An accused has the right under our
State and Federal Constitutions to be informed of the charges filed against him. U.S.
C ONST . amend. VI; CONST . art. 1, § 22 (amend. 10). Washington recognizes that a
charging document that fails to include all necessary elements of a crime raises such a
constitutional challenge. State v. Haberman, 105 Wn. App. 926, 933, 22 P.3d 264
(2001).
A constitutional challenge to a charging document is reviewed de novo. State v.
Goss, 186 Wn.2d 372, 376, 378 P.3d 154 (2016). However, when a charging document
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 37232-4-III
State v. Bacon
3
is challenged for the first time on appeal, we liberally construe the document. State v.
McCarty, 140 Wn.2d 420, 425, 998 P.2d 296 (2000). When the information is read
liberally, the document will be found sufficient “if the necessary elements appear in any
form, or by fair construction may be found, on the face of the document.” Id. On the
other hand, “[i]f the document cannot be construed to give notice of or to contain in some
manner the essential elements of a crime, the most liberal reading cannot cure it.” State
v. Campbell, 125 Wn.2d 797, 802, 888 P.2d 1185 (1995).
In this case, Mr. Bacon asserts that count two of the information failed to include
the necessary element of intent. Specifically regarding that count, the information
alleged:
COUNT II: MAKING OR POSSESSING A MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT
TOOL, committed as follows: That the defendant, CHRISTOPHER
BACON, in the State of Washington, on or about May 15, 2019, did
possess a motor vehicle theft tool or implement that has been adapted,
designed or is commonly used in the commission of motor vehicle related
theft, to-wit: a SHAVED KEYS, allowing the motor vehicle theft tool to be
used or employed in the commission of motor vehicle theft.
Clerk’s Papers at 6.
The first question to address is whether mens rea is a necessary element of the
crime of making or possessing a motor vehicle theft tool.
The relevant statute provides:
Any person who makes or mends, or causes to be made or mended, uses, or
has in his or her possession any motor vehicle theft tool, that is adapted,
designed, or commonly used for the commission of motor vehicle related
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 37232-4-III
State v. Bacon
4
theft, under circumstances evincing an intent to use or employ, or allow the
same to be used or employed, in the commission of motor vehicle theft, or
knowing that the same is intended to be so used, is guilty of making or
having motor vehicle theft tools.
RCW 9A.56.063(1) (emphasis added).
The statute provides alternatives means of committing the crime. Under the first
alternative, the necessary mens rea requires the State to prove circumstances evincing an
intent to use, employ, or allow the tool to be used or employed. As the State points out,
under the “series-qualifier canon” of statutory construction, the phrase “under
circumstances evincing an intent” modifies both phrases “to use or employ” as well as
“allow the same to be used or employed.” See Porto Rico Ry., Light & Power Co. v.
Mor, 253 U.S. 345, 348, 40 S. Ct. 516, 64 L. Ed. 944 (1920); see also A NTONIN SCALIA
& BRYAN A. G ARNER , READING LAW: T HE INTERPRETATION OF L EGAL T EXTS 147
(2012).1
Alternatively, the State could prove that the defendant knew the tool was intended
to be used in the theft of a motor vehicle. These alternatives require proof of either intent
or knowledge. Thus, mens rea is a necessary element of making or possessing motor
vehicle theft tools under RCW 9A.56.063(1).
1 The State sets forth significant and appreciable analysis on the rules of construction
in its brief.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 37232-4-III
State v. Bacon
5
The Constitution requires a charging document to include all the necessary
elements of a crime. State v. Kjorsvik, 117 Wn.2d 93, 97, 812 P.2d 86 (1991). While it
is not necessary to use the exact language of a statute, the language used must convey the
same meaning. Id. at 108. The information in this case, when viewed as a whole, failed
to notify Mr. Bacon that the crime was committed with intent or knowledge, even when
read liberally.
We reverse and dismiss without prejudice Mr. Bacon’s conviction on count two:
making or possessing a motor vehicle theft tool.
_________________________________
Staab, J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________________________
Siddoway, A.C.J.
_________________________________
Lawrence-Berrey, J.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.