Archive for the ‘Double Jeopardy’ Category

Court of Appeals: Div. III – Assault Was Part of Rape and Thus Cannot Convict for Both Crimes

July 29, 2010

State v. Williams

This is a lovely story about a swell guy (note sarcasm). Floyd Williams was convicted on two counts of rape and one count of second degree assault with sexual motivation, which involved two victims. The cases had been consolidated and tried together. The trial court admitted testimony from the victim of Floyd’s prior rape conviction. Floyd was sentenced to life imprisonment as a persistent offender based on these convictions and the prior rape conviction.

Floyd appealed the admittance of the prior victim’s testimony. In addition, Floyd claimed that the assault charge should have merged with the rape charge.

Evidence Rule 404(b) prohibits evidence of other crimes to show that the defendant acted in conformity with that character-had a propensity to commit this crime. But evidence of prior crimes may be admitted for other purposes, “such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.” Since the facts of the earlier rape were very similar to the facts of both the recent rapes, the trial court held that it showed a common scheme and the prejudice of the testimony was minimal. The Court of Appeals agreed.

Next Floyd argued that he could not be convicted of both assault and rape as the assault was part of the rape and the assault had no independent purpose. Since the assault on the victim before and during the rape is what raised it to the level of First Degree Rape, Floyd couldn’t be convicted of both charges. There was merger of the two crimes and thus the conviction for assault was vacated. Boy, I bet ole Floyd was glad to get that assault off his record. I mean what would his employer think?

Three strikes and you’re out Floyd. Out for life! Floyd also made some Pro-se arguments including that the forensic lab who conducted the tests on the victims had a history of making mistakes. But at trial he argued that the sex was consensual. Nice try Floyd.

WA Court of Appeals at Div. II: Keep Things Separate and Distinct in Jury Instructions to Keep Convictions of More Than One Count.

July 19, 2010

State v. Carter

Carer is a pederass who raped his own daughter between the ages of 6 and 7 given my counts. Lovely guy, non? Unfortunately, the jury instructions didn’t spell out which acts they were finding and subjected Carter to the possibility that the counts were based on the same acts.as opposed to several separate and distinct acts, which are required to avoid double jeopardy issues. As such, only one of the counts can survive.

Division II: State appeals defendant’s plea agreement with special deputy prosecutor

March 21, 2010

 

State v. Tracer

Tracer caused an auto accident.  Tracer had a .13 blood alcohol level, however, argued that it was a meteor that caused the accident and not his blood alcohol level.  Due to that, the special deputy prosecutor had agreed to amend the information and allow Tracer to plead guilty to a DUI instead of vehicular assault.  The special deputy prosecutor didn’t show up for the hearing.  The judge assigned a defense counsel in court representing another defendant as special deputy prosecutor who, in turn, amended the information and entered Tracer’s plea that same day at the court’s direction.

The state appealed the judgment and sentence entered. The issues facing the court were: 1) whether the State had a right to appeal, 2) whether it was a violation of separation of powers for the superior court judge to appoint a defense counsel as special deputy prosecutor, and 3) whether due process and/or double jeopardy prohibited a remand. 

The Court of Appeals held that the state had a right to appeal under the extraordinary circumstances element under RAP2.2(b)(1).  The state demonstrated that the superior court deviated from its accepted and usual practice of judicial proceedings calling for availability of review.

The Court of Appeals held that the trial court lacked authority to amend the information and wrongly appointed a new special deputy prosecutor to do the same.  Therefore, the court ruled that the amendment was invalid and Tracer’s charge of vehicular assault remains.

Finally, the Court of Appeals ruled that because the second special prosecutor was improperly appointed and his conduct was without lawful authority, a remand did not violate due process or double jeopardy.

WA Supreme Court: State can amend restitution order post conviction

February 18, 2010

State v. Bustamante Gonzalez

BG was convicted of first degree assault and first degree robbery. He did some significant damage to a guys face, causing significant vision loss in an eye. The Court ordered 21K in restitution. Six months later, the restitution was amended and dropped by about $500. After the order, treatment accrued and the crime victims fund ended up paying over $46 grand, and the State (907 days after sentencing) amended the restitution to reflect that.

The statute governing restitution states that the hearing can’t be continued more than 180 days without good cause. The statute also includes this little provisio:

The portion of the sentence concerning restitution may be modified as to amount, terms, and conditions during any period of time the offender remains under the court’s jurisdiction, regardless of the expiration of the offender’s term of community supervision and regardless of the statutory maximum sentence for the crime.

Gonzales argued “amount” was ambiguous as to whether it meant amount of payment or amount of restitution. Given that the statute already has a payment modification clause…argument fail!

Sorry Busta (you knew there was a reason I was including the first name).

WA Legal Roundup: Division II

August 26, 2009

State v. Thomas

Thomas was convicted of 8 counts of witness tampering.  He appeals arguing that his conduct should be treated as “one unit of prosecution for double jeopardy purposes.”  The court ruled that to determine whether double jeopardy principles were violated where a defendant is convicted of many violations under the same statue, the court establishes which unit of prosecution the legislature intends as the punishable act. 

Here, Thomas argues (and the dissent agrees) that the “unit of prosecution” is each individual witness.  Here, Thomas’s attempts to change only one witnesses testimony, eight different times and he therefore argues that there exists only one unit of prosecution.

The majority disagrees and held that his convictions are properly separate and thus do not violate the double jeopardy clause.  The majority basis its conclusion on the analysis that “the State does not argue that each telephone call supports a separate witness tampering charge in this case.  The breaks in time, the method (multiple phone calls over multiple days), and differing and distinct manners in which Thomas attempted to induce [the witness] to testify falsely,” all support the eight separate attempts and subsequent convictions. 


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 476 other followers