Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Dahndre Westwood entered A.B.’s house around 4:30 a.m. A.B. saw Westwood standing in her hallway and holding a knife in his hand. Westwood told her to get undressed and threatened to kill her if she did not cooperate. A.B. screamed for help and pleaded for her life; she clawed at Westwood and knocked the knife out of his hand. During the struggle, Westwood nicked A.B. with the knife, leaving a scar on her cheek. Westwood choked and suffocated A.B. to muffle her screams for help and hit her repeatedly on the head. Several cars passed A.B.’s house while this transpired, and the headlights shone in the window. Westwood stopped his assault after the second or third set of headlights passed. He threatened A.B. that if she told anyone about the assault he would come back to kill her. Westwood then ran into the living room and out the front door. A.B. called 911 and was taken to the hospital by first responders shortly after. A jury convicted Westwood of attempted rape in the first degree, assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and burglary in the first degree. At sentencing, Westwood argued that his convictions encompassed the same criminal conduct for scoring purposes. The State disagreed and asked the court to apply the analysis from Washington v. Chenoweth, 370 P.3d 6 (2016). The trial court determined that the three convictions did not constitute the same criminal conduct because each of the crimes required a different statutory intent. Westwood appealed, arguing that Washington v. Dunaway, 743 P.2d 1237, 749 P.2d 160 (1987) controlled. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court for determination of whether the convictions encompassed the same criminal conduct under the analysis of Dunaway. Some lower courts found conflict between the analysis in Dunaway and that in Chenoweth. The Washington Supreme Court took the opportunity to provide guidance on the relationship between these cases and found no conflict existed. Here, the objective statutory intent analysis was the proper test. The Court affirmed the sentencing court’s decision and reversed the Court of Appeals. View "Washington v. Westwood" on Justia Law

Respondent Peter Ansell was serving an indeterminate life sentence in community custody. The Indeterminate Sentencing Review Board (ISRB) sought review of a Court of Appeals decision invalidating certain community custody conditions. After review, the Washington Supreme Court concluded the conditions relating to sexually explicit materials, dating, and relationships were not unconstitutionally vague. However, the Court determined the ISRB exceeded its authority in imposing the cannabis condition, to which the ISRB conceded was not related to Ansell’s crimes. View "In re Pers. Restraint of Ansell" on Justia Law

Petitioner Paul Rivers, a Black man, was convicted on two criminal charges in King County, Washington by a jury drawn from a panel that lacked any Black potential jurors. Rivers argued this venire, as well as certain aspects of the King County jury selection system that produced this venire, violated his state and federal fair cross section rights. “No one in this case disputes that jury diversity is lacking in Washington and that more can and must be done to promote juror diversity statewide.” Because Rivers did not show that the Washington Constitution required the heightened test he proposed for assessing fair cross section claims, the Court analyzed his claim using the existing Sixth Amendment framework, and that Rivers’ venire and King County’s jury selection system satisfied constitutional minimums. The case was remanded for resentencing, because the Court found Rivers was entitled to the benefit of RCW 9.94A.647, which no longer allowed a persistent offender life sentence based on prior second-degree robbery convictions. View "Washington v. Rivers" on Justia Law

Interlocutory review was granted to challenge a trial court’s denial of a suppression motion of evidence observed during a warrantless entry into a dwelling. The trial court concluded that the entry was justified, applying what cases characterized as the “community caretaking exception” to the warrant requirement, based on rendering emergency aid and conducting a health and safety check. At issue before the Washington Supreme Court whether the United States Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment case, Caniglia v. Strom, 141 S. Ct. 1596 (2021), required the Washington Court to reevaluate the state constitution article I, section 7 cases recognizing exceptions to the warrant requirement. Petitioner Ului Lakepa Teulilo argued that the United States Supreme Court invalidated the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement as applied to the home, and therefore, under the supremacy clause, Washington state cases recognizing a health and safety check exception under the same doctrine were invalid. To this, the Washington Supreme Court disagreed, and affirmed the trial court. View "Washington v. Teulilo" on Justia Law

These cases concerned whether bail may be denied under article I, section 20 of the Washington Constitution for defendants charged with a class A felony. Patrick Sargent was denied bail and was in custody pretrial for charges of first-degree attempted murder, domestic violence, and felony harassment, domestic violence. As charged, and based on his offender score, Sargent faced a determinate sentence of about 20-25 years. Sargent appealed, alleging he was unlawfully restrained because he was unconstitutionally denied bail. He claimed his crimes, as charged, were not punishable by the possibility of life in prison. The Court of Appeals held that article I, section 20 applied to all class A felonies because all class A felonies carried a statutory maximum sentence of life. In the consolidated case, Leonel Gonzalez was similarly denied bail and was in custody pretrial for first-degree felony murder and unlawful possession of a firearm. As charged, he faced about 34-46 years. In denying bail, the trial court relied on Sargent and the plain language of article I, section 20, concluding that because Gonzalez was facing a class A felony with a maximum of life in prison, the trial court could constitutionally deny bail. Gonzalez appealed directly to the Washington Supreme Court. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals in Sargent’s case and denied Sargent’s personal restraint petition (PRP). In addition, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court in Gonzalez’s case. The Court agreed with the State and lower courts that the plain language of the constitution focused on whether the offense in general, not as charged, could possibly be punished by life in prison. The cases were remanded to the trial courts for further proceedings. View "In re Pers. Restraint of Sargent" on Justia Law

Petitioner Theodore Rhone asked the Washington Supreme Court to adopt a bright line rule establishing a prima facie case of discrimination when the State peremptorily strikes the last member of a racially cognizable group from a jury venire. “Without the benefit of the considerable knowledge we have gained regarding the impact of implicit bias in jury selection,” a “fractured” majority of the Supreme Court declined to adopt Rhone’s proposed rule in 2010. But seven years later, it did, in City of Seattle v. Erickson, 398 P.3d 1124 (2017). Although this case came to the Supreme Court as a personal restraint petition (PRP), the central issue was the Court’s 2010 decision in Rhone’s own case. The Supreme Court took the opportunity here to revisit and correct that decision. “Given the unique factual and procedural history of this case and in the interest of justice,” the Court recalled its prior mandate, reversed Rhone’s convictions, and remanded for a new trial. View "In re Pers. Restraint of Rhone" on Justia Law

Petitioner Denver Lee Shoop kept a small herd of eight bison on his property. The State charged him with eight counts of animal cruelty in the first degree for his treatment of those eight bison. RCW 16.52.205(2) stated that one commits “animal cruelty in the first degree” when “he or she, with criminal negligence, starves, dehydrates, or suffocates an animal…” and causes considerably suffering or death. The State included “starves, dehydrates, or suffocates” in each of the eight counts. The jury convicted Shoop as charged, but without specifying which of those three means the State actually proved. Shoop appealed, arguing in part that RCW 16.52.205(2) constituted an “alternative means” crime, so either (1) the jury had to achieve unanimity about which means the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt or (2) the record had to show that sufficient evidence supported each of those multiple means. The Washington Supreme Court held RCW 16.52.205(2) described a single crime of animal cruelty in the first degree. “That statutory subsection’s list of ways of committing animal cruelty—negligently starving, dehydrating, or suffocating—constitute “minor nuances inhering in the same act [or omission],” not completely different acts, i.e., not “alternative means.” View "Washington v. Shoop" on Justia Law

A trial court granted Jeremy Dustin Hubbard’s motion to modify a court-imposed community custody condition approximately 15 years after sentencing based on a change in Hubbard’s factual circumstances. The Court of Appeals affirmed. However, the Washington Supreme Court found the current statutory framework did not contain a provision authorizing Hubbard’s requested modification. "Outside a direct appeal or a timely collateral attack, a trial court cannot modify court-imposed community custody conditions after sentencing without express statutory authority to do so." Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded to the trial court to vacate its order. View "Washington v. Hubbard" on Justia Law

In 2018, Petitioner Zachery Meredith boarded a “Swift Blue Line” bus in Snohomish County. Swift buses used a “barrier-free payment-system[ ].” Snohomish County Sheriff’s Deputy Thomas Dalton and his partner were also on the Swift Blue Line that day, conducting fare enforcement pursuant to RCW 36.57A.235. In addition to the two deputies, a third officer was “in his patrol car, following [the bus] and acting as the back-up officer.” Meredith was already on the bus when Dalton and his partner boarded the bus; Dalton “never observed [Petitioner] getting on the bus without paying,” either in person or on video. In accordance with his “general practice,” Dalton requested “‘proof of payment or ORCA card’” from each passenger on the bus. On this particular day, Meredith was one of three individuals who “was not able to present proof of fare payment,” so “[u]pon reaching the next stop, Deputy Dalton detained [Meredith] outside at the bus platform.” Meredith “did not possess any identification documents,” but he gave the deputy a name and birth date, which turned out to be false. Rather than issuing a “civil infraction[ ]” for Meredith’s failure to provide proof of payment, the deputy “believed he had probable cause to arrest [Meredith] for theft in the third degree.” The officers ultimately learned he had two outstanding arrest warrants, for which Meredith was arrested and taken to jail. The State charged Meredith with a gross misdemeanor for making “a false or misleading material statement to a public servant.” Meredith unsuccessfully moved to suppress, contending the deputy lacked reasonable suspicion a crime had been committed. The issue presented for the Washington Supreme Court's review was whether Meredith was "disturbed in his private affairs" by the particular method of fare enforcement used here and, if so, whether this disturbance complied with article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution. Based on the totality of the circumstances presented, a majority of the Court held Meredith was unlawfully seized. Thus, the Court of Appeals was reversed and the case remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Washington v. Meredith" on Justia Law

This case concerned an untimely personal restraint petition that petitioner Jonathan Pitchlynn alleged was exempt from the one-year time bar under RCW 10.73.100(5) because the judgment and sentence was imposed in excess of the trial court’s jurisdiction. The Washington Supreme Court ordered a reference hearing to resolve a material factual dispute. Based on the factual findings, the Court concluded the trial court had jurisdiction to enter the judgment and sentence. Accordingly, the Court dismissed petitioner’s personal restraint petition as untimely. View "In re Pers. Restraint of Pitchlynn" on Justia Law