618 P.2d 99 (1980)
Defendant argued that to have been convicted of attempted first degree theft the State had to have proven that he knew the property he attempted to steal had a value in excess of $ 1,500, as required by Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.56.030.
- The court disagreed and held that Wash. Rev. Code §§ 9A.56.020-.030(a)(1) did not include as an element of the crime that defendant must have had knowledge of the value of the property.
- Defendant confused knowledge with intent.
- The main issue was whether there was sufficient evidence that defendant intended to steal.
- The court concluded that any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of attempted theft in the first degree.
- Therefore, the affirmation of defendant's conviction by the appellate court was affirmed.
The court affirmed the appellate court's affirmation of defendant's conviction for attempted theft in the first degree.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Law