Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The State charged Joseph McEnroe and Michele Anderson with aggravated first degree murder and sought the death sentence for each of them. Roughly five and a half years after the State filed its notices of intent to seek the death penalty, the trial court ruled that the absence of "'sufficient mitigating circumstances to merit leniency"' was an essential element of the crime of capital murder in Washington and that the State had allege the absence of sufficient mitigating circumstances in the charging information. The trial court gave the State two weeks to amend each charging information to allege insufficient mitigating circumstances; if the State failed do to so, the court would entertain a defense motion to dismiss the State's notices of intent to seek the death penalty. The State appealed that order. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision to compel the State to amend each information or face dismissal of the notice of special sentencing proceeding. The notice of special sentencing proceeding afforded the defendants constitutionally and statutorily adequate notice that the State intended to prove the absence of sufficient mitigating circumstances to merit leniency. View "Washington v. McEnroe" on Justia Law

In 1993, petitioner Lindsey Crumpton was convicted of five counts of first degree rape and one count of residential burglary. In 2011, he petitioned the court for post-conviction deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing. The superior court denied this motion, saying he had not shown a '"likelihood that the DNA evidence would demonstrate his innocence on a more probable than not basis"' as is required by RCW 10.73.170(3). The Court of Appeals affirmed. The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review was the standard the court should use to decide a motion for post-conviction DNA testing and whether a court should presume DNA evidence would be favorable to the convicted individual when determining if it is likely the evidence would prove his or her innocence. The Court held that a court should use such a presumption. View "Washington v. Crumpton" on Justia Law

The State charged Joseph Peltier in 2002 with two counts of second degree rape (as to B.M. and S.B.), one count of second degree child molestation (as to S.G.), and one count of second degree rape of a child (as to S.G.). The crimes occurred between 1993 and 2001. In 2003, to accommodate a negotiated settlement of his case, Peltier agreed to a stipulated trial on an amended information charging him with third degree rape (as to B.M. and J.D., a victim not referenced in the original information) and indecent liberties (as to S.B.). The charges as to S.G. were dismissed. In 2004, the trial judge found Peltier guilty and sentenced him. The statute of limitations on the four original charges had not yet run, but the statute of limitations for the charges he was convicted of had expired by January 1998, well before he was charged with and sentenced for them. The issue this case presented to the Supreme Court was whether a defendant could relinquish the rights conferred by the statute of limitations in a pretrial agreement. Upon review, the Court held that a defendant may expressly waive the criminal statute of limitations in a pretrial agreement when the statute of limitations on the underlying charge has not yet run at the time the defendant enters the agreement. "A statute of limitations does not affect a court's subject matter jurisdiction; it affects the authority of a court to sentence a defendant for a crime. A defendant may expressly waive a criminal statute of limitations when he or she agrees to do so when the statute of limitations has not yet run on the underlying charges. At that time, the court has authority over the charges so an express waiver is effective and will be upheld. Peltier waived the statute of limitations when the charges were still valid. We reverse the Court of Appeals and the trial court and hold that the State may refile the original charges." View "Washington v. Peltier" on Justia Law

In this case, the trial court granted a new trial after Edwin Hawkins produced new evidence that supported his defense theory that he was framed for possessing stolen farm equipment. The Court of Appeals did not give that decision its proper deference. The Supreme Court reversed because the trial court did not abuse its wide discretion in awarding Hawkins a new trial. View "Washington v. Hawkins" on Justia Law

Russell Homan was convicted of child luring. On appeal, Homan argued that his conviction violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process because the evidence was insufficient for conviction and that RCW 9A.40.090 (the Washington luring statute) was unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the First Amendment. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction due to insufficiency of evidence. The State appealed the reversal, and the Supreme Court granted review on the sufficiency of evidence issue. The Court declined to rule on the overbreadth issue because it would benefit from additional briefing and argument. The Court found sufficient evidence to find that Homan lured a minor and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to decide the overbreadth issue. View "Washington v. Homan" on Justia Law

At his arraignment in August 2012, Petitioner Peter Barton pleaded not guilty to a charge of rape of a child in the first degree. The court set bail at $250,000. The prosecutor asked for a condition requiring 10 percent of the amount to be deposited in cash with the registry of the court. Barton objected to the cash-only bail, and the trial court delayed consideration of the request. At a hearing the next day, the State asked the court to increase Barton's bail to $1,000,000 and direct that if Barton "should post bond that 10 percent of that be in cash." The judge entered an order setting bail at $500,000 and stating that Barton was required to execute a "bond with [sic] depositing 10% cash in the registry of the court." The issue this case presented to the Supreme Court centered on article I, section 20 of the Washington State Constitution and its mandate that criminal defendants "shall be bailable by sufficient sureties." Peter Barton's bail invoked Criminal Rule (CrR) 3.2(b)(4). Barton claims the trial court's order violated his guaranty to bail by sufficient sureties. The Supreme Court held that article I, section 20 meant a defendant must be allowed the option to secure bail via a surety, as distinct from cash or other security. To the extent the trial court's order disallowed this possibility, the Supreme Court vacated the trial court's order and remanded for further proceedings. View "Washington v. Barton" on Justia Law

Petitioner Alvin Witherspoon appealed his conviction and life sentence for second degree robbery. Because the robbery conviction was his third "most serious offense," he was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of release under the Persistent Offender Accountability Act (POAA) of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1981 (SRA). On appeal to the Supreme Court, Witherspoon: challenged the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial to convict him; argued he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel; and that his persistent offender sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Washington v. Witherspoon" on Justia Law

"TC" took a loaded gun from the home where his mother lived with her boyfriend, Douglas Bauer. The gun belonged to Bauer. TC brought that loaded gun to school in his backpack a few days after he stole it. The gun discharged as TC was rummaging in his pack at the end of the day. The bullet struck one of TC's classmates, and it seriously injured her. The State charged Bauer with assault in the third degree, alleging that he, "[w]ith criminal negligence, cause[d] bodily harm to another person by means of a weapon or other instrument or thing likely to produce bodily harm." Before trial, Bauer moved to dismiss, arguing that the facts did not support a third degree assault charge as a matter of law. The State argued that the statutory phrase "causes bodily harm" reached Bauer's conduct as a primary "cause" of the harm to TC's classmate. The trial court agreed with the State and denied the motion to dismiss but then certified the matter to the Court of Appeals. In a split decision, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's ruling. The Supreme Court agreed with Bauer, however: "Although causation in fact is the same in criminal and civil cases, legal causation is not. Our case law suggests that legal causation does not extend as far in criminal cases as it does in tort cases, and even our civil cases do not extend liability as far as the State seeks to do in this case. We therefore reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals." View "Washington v. Bauer" on Justia Law

Miguel Angel Villanueva-Gonzalez was convicted of second degree assault and fourth degree assault for attacking his girl friend. On appeal, he contended that his actions constituted one assault, and therefore two convictions violated double jeopardy. Finding that the legislature has not provided a definition of assault and the common law definition was ambiguous, the Washington Supreme Court was "guided by the many other jurisdictions that have treated assault as a course of conduct crime," and was "mindful of the 'rule of lenity,'" which required the Court to adopt the interpretation most favorable to the defendant. It therefore affirmed the Court of Appeals and held that Villanueva-Gonzalez's two assault convictions violated double jeopardy because the underlying acts occurred during the same course of conduct. View "Washington v. Villanueva-Gonzalez" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented to the Supreme Court centered on the permissible scope of these protective frisks. An officer stopped Tanner Russell for violating several minor traffic laws. The officer recognized Russell from a previous encounter where Russell had told officers he was not armed, when in fact he had a small gun in his pocket. Fearing for his safety, the officer frisked Russell for weapons and felt a small box in Russell's pants pocket. The officer removed the box, opened it, and found a syringe filled with methamphetamine. The State charged Russell with possession of a controlled substance; the syringe was the only evidence against him. Russell moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the search was unlawful, and the trial court granted his motion and dismissed the case. The trial court found that although the initial stop was justified, the frisk was not because the stop occurred in a well-lit area and Russell did not verbally threaten the officer, nor did he make any threatening gestures or movements. The court also found that even if the frisk was justified, the search of the container was not because it posed no threat once it was in the control of the officer. The Supreme Court held that the initial protective frisk was justified to protect officer safety, but the warrantless search of the container was not because it exceeded the permissible scope of a protective frisk. View "Washington v. Russell" on Justia Law