## Facts

- Steven Edward Leyda possessed a Bon Marché credit card belonging to Cynthia Austin.
- Leyda gave the card to his girlfriend, Nikkoleen Cooley, who used it at the Bon Marché store at SeaTac Mall to purchase items.
- Austin did not know Leyda or Cooley and did not authorize use of her card.
- Five days later, Leyda and Cooley returned to the same store, and Cooley used Austin’s card to buy a watch; shortly thereafter, Leyda and Cooley used the card again to buy additional items in another department.
- The State treated four separate uses or attempted uses of the same card over a short period as four separate identity-theft offenses.
- Leyda was charged with four counts of second-degree identity theft (RCW 9.35.020), plus theft and possession-of-stolen-property offenses.
- A jury convicted Leyda on all counts; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The Washington Supreme Court granted review on double jeopardy (unit of prosecution) and charging-document sufficiency.

## Issues

1. Under RCW 9.35.020, what is the unit of prosecution for identity theft, and did four counts based on multiple uses of one stolen credit card violate double jeopardy?
2. Must the charging document allege the value of items unlawfully obtained as an essential element of second-degree identity theft and third-degree theft?

## Decision

- The court held the unit of prosecution for identity theft is any one act of knowingly obtaining, possessing, using, or transferring another person’s means of identification or financial information with intent to commit (or aid/abet) a crime.
- Because Leyda’s conduct constituted a single course of proscribed conduct involving the same victim’s financial information, the State’s division into four identity-theft counts violated double jeopardy.
- The court reversed three of the four second-degree identity-theft convictions and remanded for resentencing.
- The court held value is not an essential element of second-degree identity theft or third-degree theft; omission of value did not render the information constitutionally deficient.
- The court affirmed the third-degree theft convictions and left the remaining non-identity-theft convictions undisturbed.

## Legal Principles

- Double jeopardy analysis for multiple counts under one statute turns on the legislature’s intended “unit of prosecution.”
- For RCW 9.35.020, the punishable act is a single act of obtaining, possessing, using, or transferring another’s identification/financial information with the required criminal intent, not each transaction completed with that information.
- When statutory intent on the unit of prosecution is unclear, ambiguity is construed in favor of the accused.
- A charging document is constitutionally sufficient if it alleges all essential elements; value is not an essential element of second-degree identity theft or third-degree theft under the statutes at issue.

## Conclusion

The Washington Supreme Court ruled that multiple short-term uses of a single stolen credit card constituted only one identity-theft offense under RCW 9.35.020, making additional identity-theft convictions a double-jeopardy violation, while also holding that the State need not plead the value of items obtained to charge second-degree identity theft or third-degree theft.


State v. Leyda, 138 P.3d 610 (Wash. 2006)