The Washington State Court of Appeals has overturned a 2014 Lewis County conviction for first-degree trafficking in stolen property in a case involving wire theft, according to an opinion published Tuesday.
The appeals court upheld Chad Colton Bass’s 2014 convictions for second-degree burglary and third-degree theft charges, but ordered a new trial for a conviction for first-degree trafficking in stolen property, based on the trial court’s refusal to allow a jury to consider a lesser charge of second-degree trafficking in stolen property.
“We hold that the trial court erred in refusing to give Bass’s proposed jury instructions on second degree trafficking in stolen property,” wrote appeals court judge Bradley A. Maxa. “Accordingly, we reverse Bass’s conviction for first degree trafficking in stolen property and remand for a new trial of that charge.”
Judge Richard Brosey presided over the original case.
In December 2013, a city of Centralia employee found a live service wire from a power pole had been cut with a hatchet or a machete near a house.
The employee was able to match the cut end of the wire to wire sold at a metal recycler, which led investigators to Bass. Bass allegedly admitting removing the wiring from the house.
Bass reportedly testified at his trial that he believed the former owner of the home had given him permission to strip it of recyclables, and said he did not know the house was now owned by a bank after foreclosure proceedings.
He was eventually convicted of second-degree burglary, third-degree theft and first-degree trafficking in stolen property.
In his appeal, Bass also argued that the state did not have enough evidence to convict him of the three crimes.
The appeals court disagreed on this argument, saying that evidence presented showed that Bass should have known his friend who gave him permission to enter the house no longer owned it, and that he planned to take the property anyway.
Bass’s appeal also argued that the jury should have been instructed that since the house was abandoned, he had a legal a defense for trespassing. The court ruled that if the trial judge erred in not giving that instruction to the jury, it was a harmless error because the jury did not discuss trespass charges.
