Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

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

William France was convicted of five counts of felony harassment and one count of witness intimidation for making multiple harassing calls to his former attorneys. The jury was instructed consistent with the pattern jury instructions on witness intimidation. There was no evidence presented that France, who was in jail when he made the calls, intended immediately to use force against any person present at the time of the charged conduct. France contended under the law of the case doctrine, his felony harassment convictions should have been dismissed. The State argued that the instructions, taken as a whole, accurately informed the jury of the elements of felony harassment and that it presented sufficient evidence to sustain France's convictions. The Supreme Court agreed with the State, and affirmed the trial court. View "Washington v. France" on Justia Law

In 2010, two Fare Enforcement Officers entered a train car at the Rainier Beach station and instructed all passengers to present proof of fare. When FEO Willet asked fifteen-year-old K.L.B. and his two companions to present proof of fare payment, they gave him their bus transfers. FEO Willet informed them that while bus transfers used to be valid on the light-rail, they were no longer accepted. The three young males were instructed by FEO Willet to exit the train at the next station. The FEOs asked the three males for identification once they exited the train. All three were either unable or unwilling to provide identification. K.L.B. was temporarily detained at the Othello station. The King County Sheriff's Office was called to assist in identifying K.L.B. and his companions so they could potentially be cited for fare evasion. Deputy Adams then asked K.L.B. to identify one of his male companions. He responded that he did not know his companion's full name and that he: knew him only as '"Marty."' Deputy Adams returned to the station and used a computer database to identify "Marty." There was an assault warrant out for "Marty's" arrest. K.L.B. was charged with two counts of making a false or misleading statement to a public servant under RCW 9A.76. 175. K.L.B. was found guilty of making a false statement to FEO Willet (count II). He was found not guilty of making a false statement to Deputy Adams (count I). K.L.B. appealed to Division One of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed his conviction. K.L.B. argued that a Sound Transit FEO was not a "public servant" as defined in RCW 9A.04.110(23). He also argued that the definition of "public servant" was unconstitutionally vague and that to convict a person of making a false or misleading statement to a public servant, the State must prove that the defendant knew the statement was made to a public servant. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's conclusion that under the statute, FEO Willet was a public servant at the time K.L.B. made the false statement. The Supreme Court held that under these circumstances, because FEOs are not government employees, are not officers of government, and do not perform a governmental function, they are not "public servants" as defined by the statute. View "Washington v. K.L.B." on Justia Law

After an alternate was substituted for a juror, the trial court told the reconstituted jury that the remaining original jurors should bring the alternate "up to speed" as to what had already occurred and deliberate from there. The defendant claimed error for the first time on appeal because the jury was not instructed to begin deliberations anew. The Court of Appeals concluded the claimed error was a violation of CrR 6.5 that could be raised for the first time on appeal, then reversed the trial court judgment because the rights to jury impartiality and unanimity were violated. The State argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that the error was only a rule violation that did not constitute manifest constitutional error that could be raised for the first time under RAP 2.5(a)(3). The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, although for different reasons. "It is unnecessary to address CrR 6.5 because the trial court's affirmative instruction to the reconstituted jury violated the right to a unanimous jury verdict regardless of any violation of CrR 6.5." View "Washington v. Lamar" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented to the Supreme Court centered on the proper assignment of the burden of proof at a pretrial competency hearing following treatment designed to restore competency. The trial court placed the burden on respondent Blayne Coley to prove his incompetence. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the burden rested with the State to prove restoration of competency and that the trial court's mistake created structural error. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and held that the relevant statute, interpreted by its language, the context of the provision, the statutory scheme as a whole, and related provisions, placed the burden on the party contesting competency where, after an evaluation ordered under RCW 10.77.060, the individual has been evaluated as competent. Furthermore, the Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to rule on Coley's requests to proceed prose pending a competency determination, and that Coley's request after he was deemed competent to stand trial, and therefore eligible for self-representation, was equivocal. View "Washington v. Coley" on Justia Law

This case arose out of an incident of domestic violence committed by petitioner Edward Olsen against the mother of his children, Bonnie Devenny. Olsen broke into Devenny's house, poured gasoline on her while she was sleeping, and told her that she was going to die. Olsen had a history of threatening and committing acts of domestic violence against Devenny, including a California conviction for terrorist threats for which he pleaded no contest. During the California incident, Olsen allegedly wrapped duct tape around Devenny's legs and told her that he was going to kill her, cut her up into little pieces, and put the pieces in a plastic storage container. The issue this case presented to the Washington Supreme Court was Washington's treatment of foreign convictions for sentencing purposes in light of "Descamps v. United States" (133 S. Ct. 2276) (2013)). Olsen's offender score at sentencing was six and he received an exceptional sentence of 360 months. Olsen claimed that a foreign conviction for terrorist threats was not comparable to Washington's felony harassment and should not have been included in his offender score. The Court of Appeals affirmed Olsen's convictions and sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals. View "Washington v. Olsen" on Justia Law