Appellant's Brief - Washington State Courts

could be used for improper purposes, and that since no evidence had been
presented establishing an innocent explanation as to why Mr. Hendrickson
had these cards in his possession, the jury could infer that Mr. Hendrickson
possessed the cards for an unlawfUl purpose. RP 401-402.
An analysis of the trial court's reasons for denying the motion for
directed verdict with respect to Mr. Salazar-Guerrero, Mr. Noe, and the
unknown boy from Florida reveals that the trial court erred. A trial court's
denial of a motion to dismiss is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Quality
Rock Prod., Inc. v. fiurston County, 126 Wn.App. 250, 260, 108 P.3d
805 (2005). A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is
"manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds." Grandmaster
Sheng-Yen Lu v. King Cmnty, 110 Wn.App. 92,99,38 P.3d 1040 (2002).
A court's decision is manifestly unreasonable if it is outside the range of
acceptable choices, given the facts and the applicable legal standard; it is
based on untenable grounds if the factual findings are unsupported by the
record; it is based on untenable reasons if it is based on an incorrect
standard or the facts do not meet the requirements of the correct standard.
Grandmaster Cheng-Yen Lu, 110 Wn.App. at 99, 38 P.3d 1040.
While the trial court was correct that the jury might infer the Mr.
Hendrickson had aided in the transmittal of Mr. Salazar-Guerrero7s social
security number, the State failed to produce any evidence from which the