## Facts

- Rodney Guy Delmarter was observed inside Warren’s Drug Store near the prescription counter at the back of the store.
- The pharmacy area behind the counter was restricted to employees and separated from the customer area by a swinging door and an elevated step.
- A pharmacist saw Delmarter moving around near the prescription counter and looking behind it as if checking whether anyone was present.
- The pharmacist then discovered Delmarter inside the restricted pharmacy area, crouched on the floor near a camouflaged cash drawer.
- The cash drawer was disguised to appear like a shelf, was located about 17 feet from the pharmacy entrance, and contained about $1,800 in cash (and controlled substances) at the time.
- Store staff accessed that drawer for change multiple times daily, and calls for change were sometimes shouted across the store.
- When confronted, Delmarter struggled with the pharmacist (forming the basis for a separate simple-assault conviction) and then fled with two companions.
- Delmarter testified he entered to buy cough syrup, dropped some change that rolled behind the counter, and went into the pharmacy area only to retrieve it and locate the pharmacist.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence, viewed most favorably to the State, was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Delmarter specifically intended to commit attempted theft in the first degree.
2. Whether attempted first-degree theft requires proof that the defendant knew the value of the targeted property exceeded the statutory threshold.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the attempted first-degree theft conviction.
- Applying the constitutional sufficiency standard, the court held a rational jury could infer Delmarter’s intent to steal from his unauthorized entry into the restricted pharmacy area and his conduct near the camouflaged cash drawer.
- The court held the State did not need to prove Delmarter knew the property’s value exceeded the first-degree theft threshold; it was enough that he intended to steal property and that the property targeted met the statutory value requirement.
- The simple-assault conviction was not challenged and remained in place.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence is sufficient if, viewing it in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Circumstantial evidence is not less reliable than direct evidence, and specific intent may be inferred from conduct when indicated as a matter of logical probability.
- For graded theft offenses defined by value, the State need not prove the defendant’s knowledge of the value bracket; it must prove intent to steal and that the property involved actually satisfies the statutory value element.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Delmarter’s attempted first-degree theft conviction because the circumstances supported an inference that he targeted the contents of the camouflaged cash drawer in the restricted pharmacy area, and the State was not required to prove he knew the drawer’s contents exceeded the statutory value threshold.


State v. Delmarter, 94 Wn.2d 634, 618 P.2d 99 (Wash. 1980)