Tacoma Criminal Lawyer Blog

Court Analyzes Dating Relationships in Washington Domestic Violence Cases

Published on: June 20, 2019 | By The Law Offices of Smith & White, PLLC

It is well-established that to prove a person committed a crime, the State is required to produce evidence adequate to establish each element of the crime. A defendant can attack the State’s case, by arguing that the State has not met its burden regarding the sufficiency of the evidence. This was demonstrated in a recent Washington domestic violence case, in which the defendant argued that the State failed to offer sufficient evidence to prove he was in a “dating relationship” with his alleged victim. If you live in Washington and are charged with a domestic violence crime it is essential to retain a diligent Washington domestic violence defense attorney who will assert any available defenses on your behalf.

Factual Background

It is reported that the defendant and his alleged victim met through an online dating website and communicated for two weeks before deciding to meet. They met at a restaurant, where they ate and had drinks together. They then traveled to a second bar, where they had another drink, and stopped at the defendant’s house where the defendant introduced the victim to his mother. The couple then proceeded to a waterfront area, where they kissed and went to additional bars where they consumed alcohol, before returning to the defendant’s home. They had intercourse and then fell asleep.

It is alleged that the victim awoke to find the defendant urinating on the floor. The victim attempted to rouse the defendant, who became irritated and began punching and strangling the victim. The victim left the house and called the police, who took the victim to the hospital and arrested the defendant. The defendant was ultimately charged with assault in the second degree and felony harassment, both of which included domestic violence allegations. The defendant was convicted on both charges, after which he appealed.

Washington Court Holds Indigency Does Not Bar Domestic Violence Penalties

Published on: June 12, 2019 | By The Law Offices of Smith & White, PLLC

Under Washington law, if a defendant is convicted of a crime in addition to imprisonment or probation the court may impose monetary penalties. If a defendant is indigent, however, the court may be barred from imposing certain penalties. In a recent Washington appellate court case, the court analyzed the definition of indigence under recent amendments to the Washington Rules of Criminal Procedure and whether indigency bars domestic violence penalty assessments. If you are a Washington resident currently facing domestic violence charges you should meet with a skillful Washington domestic violence defense attorney to discuss your case and potential penalties you may face.

Facts of the Case

Reportedly, the defendant pleaded guilty to seven offenses, each of which included a domestic violence allegation. The court sentenced the defendant to 347 months of imprisonment and imposed mandatory and discretionary legal financial obligations, including a domestic violence penalty assessment. The defendant appealed, arguing that recent amendments to the Washington legal financial obligation laws barred the imposition of penalties, including the domestic violence penalty, due to his indigency.

Indigency Under Washington Law

In 2018, the Washington legislature amended the rules of criminal procedure. The amendments included a prohibition of the imposition of criminal filing fees against defendants who are indigent at the time of sentencing. Further, the 2018 amendments set forth a specific definition of indigence. Under the amendments, the inability to afford a lawyer is not sufficient to prove a defendant is indigent with regards to the ability to pay legal financial obligations. Rather, the defendant must show either that he or she receives a qualifying form of public assistance, that he or she was involuntarily committed in a public mental health facility, or that his or her annual income, after taxes, is 125 percent or less of the current poverty level established by the federal government.

Washington Court Analyzes What Constitutes a Sentencing Hearing

Published on: June 6, 2019 | By The Law Offices of Smith & White, PLLC

Criminal defendants are afforded numerous rights and protections that continue even after a conviction. For example, a defendant has a right to be present and allocute at any sentencing or resentencing hearing. A Washington Appellate court recently discussed what falls under the statutory parameters of a sentencing hearing in a case in which the State filed a motion to amend a sentence to correct a facial invalidity pertaining to firearm enhancements. If you live in Washington and are currently charged with a crime involving the use of a firearm it is essential to retain a skilled Washington weapons charge defense attorney to aid you in formulating a strong defense.

Factual Background of the Case

Allegedly, the defendant was charged with and convicted of second-degree and first-degree kidnapping, second-degree assault, and harassment. Firearm enhancements were imposed for each count, with the exception of the harassment charge. A sentencing hearing was held, during which the court sentenced the defendant to consecutive sentences for each crime. At the hearing, the State requested that the firearm enhancements run concurrently. Thus, the court included a handwritten note regarding the firearm enhancements. The court failed to identify the total number of months of confinement, however.

Court Explains Sufficiency of Evidence in Washington Firearm Theft Case

Published on: May 30, 2019 | By The Law Offices of Smith & White, PLLC

In any case in which the State charges a defendant with theft of a firearm, the State must introduce adequate evidence of the charge to support a conviction. If a defendant is subsequently convicted and appeals on the grounds of insufficient evidence, the defendant effectively admits the truth of the State’s evidence but argues the evidence introduced by the State was insufficient to support a conviction. This was explained in a recent Washington appellate court case in which the court affirmed the defendant’s convictions for burglary and theft of a firearm. If you are charged with theft of a firearm or any other weapons charge it is critical to engage a knowledgeable Washington weapons charge defense attorney to help you develop a strong defense.

Factual Background of the Case

Allegedly, the defendant and his girlfriend lived in a shed on a female friend’s property. The defendant rented a storage unit, in which he and his girlfriend and female friend stored their belongings and stolen property. Shortly after the defendant began renting the unit, someone broke into three other storage units in the same property. A six-foot high fence surrounded the property, and an access code was required to open the gate. An investigation revealed that the defendant’s unique code had been used to enter the property ten times over three days.

It is further reported that security footage showed the defendant and his female friend exiting a car near the storage units that were robbed. One of the storage units that was burglarized held a gun safe that contained eight firearms. All of the firearms were missing following the burglary, and none were recovered. The defendant was charged with two counts of burglary, theft of a firearm, and unlawful possession of a firearm. The defendant was convicted of all charges except unlawful possession of a firearm. He subsequently appealed, arguing there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction.
Continue reading

Washington Court Analyzes the Rule of Corpus Delecti

Published on: May 21, 2019 | By The Law Offices of Smith & White, PLLC

In any Washington criminal case, there are procedural and evidentiary rules with which both the State and the defendant must comply. If a defendant is convicted based on evidence introduced by the State at trial that lacks a proper foundation or was improperly obtained it can result in a reversal of a conviction. A Washington Court of Appeals recently addressed the issue of whether the evidentiary rule of corpus delecti applies in a case in which the defendant entered a guilty plea for robbery in the first degree with a firearm enhancement. If you are a resident of Washington and are currently charged with a crime that includes a firearm enhancement it is important to meet with a skillful Washington weapons charge defense attorney to discuss the impact the firearm enhancement may have on your case and what evidence the State needs to obtain a conviction.

Factual Background of the Case

Reportedly, in November 2015, the defendant and another person broke into the home of an elderly man with the intent of robbing the man. Upon entering the home, one of them forced the elderly man to the ground, pointed a gun at him and demanded he relinquish his property, while the other person searched the property. The defendant and his co-conspirator ultimately left the elderly man’s home with a substantial amount of property, after which they were arrested. The defendant was charged with first-degree robbery with a firearm enhancement, first-degree burglary, and unlawful imprisonment.

It is alleged that the defendant’s attorney advised the defendant that he would probably lose if the case proceeded to trial and would receive a substantial sentence. Thus, the defendant pleaded guilty, advising the court that he entered his plea knowingly and voluntarily. The defendant subsequently appealed his conviction, arguing in part that his conviction violated the corpus delecti rule.
Continue reading

Court Discusses Requirement for Unanimity in Alternative Means Crimes in Washington

Published on: May 14, 2019 | By The Law Offices of Smith & White, PLLC

In Washington, a unanimous verdict is required to convict a defendant of assault. Thus, if less than all of the jurors agree as to whether a defendant committed the crime of assault, the defendant cannot be convicted. Although unanimity is required for a conviction, in cases where the defendant is charged with an alternative means crime, a unanimous finding as to the manner in which the crime was committed is not required to uphold a conviction. This was elucidated in a recent Washington appellate court case, in which the court affirmed the defendant’s conviction for assault in the second degree despite no unanimous finding as to how the assault was committed. If you live in Washington and are facing assault charges it is critical to confer with a trusted Washington assault defense attorney to discuss the facts of your case and what evidence the State may use against you.

Facts Regarding the Alleged Assault

Reportedly, the police met with the defendant’s wife who had bruises, black eyes, a disfigured nose, and a cauliflower ear. The defendant was subsequently charged with two counts of assault in the second degree, which is an alternative means crime, to which he pleaded not guilty. During the trial, numerous witnesses testified regarding the defendant’s alleged assault of his wife on several occasions, including the wife, the child of the defendant and his wife, and the wife’s treating physicians. The defendant was ultimately convicted of both charges. The defendant appealed, arguing that he was deprived of his right to a unanimous jury verdict because there was insufficient evidence of each of the charged means of committing assault in the second degree.

Jury Unanimity

Assault in the second degree is an alternative means crime, which means that although the statute defining the crime sets forth a single criminal offense, it delineates seven subsections as to how the offense may be committed. In the subject case, the defendant was charged with assault in the second degree committed by three alternative means. The defendant argued that the jury was required to agree unanimously as to the means used to commit the crime to support a conviction.
Continue reading

Court Discusses What Constitutes a Seizure in a Washington Weapons Crime Case

Published on: May 1, 2019 | By The Law Offices of Smith & White, PLLC

It is the duty of the police to ensure the safety of the public as a whole. In performing their job duties, however, the police are not permitted to violate the rights of individual citizens. One of the rights afforded individuals is the right to be free from unlawful seizure. If a person is unlawfully stopped, anything found during the seizure, such as a weapon, should be precluded from evidence in any trial for charges arising out of the seizure. A Washington appellate court recently addressed what constitutes a seizure in a case in which the defendant was convicted of unlawful firearm possession due to evidence found during an unlawful seizure. If you are charged with a weapons crime it is important to know how a conviction may impact your liberties and to engage an assertive Washington weapons charge defense attorney to help you present a strong defense.

Facts Regarding the Stop

It is alleged that the police received a call at 2:00 am regarding a suspicious vehicle in an alley. The caller stated that an unfamiliar vehicle was parked at the end of a dead-end street with its lights off. Two police officers responded to the call, each in his own patrol car. The patrol cars drove down the alley, but the police did not activate the cars’ overhead lights. The officers parked their cars and by doing so blocked the vehicle. The officers then approached the vehicle with flashlights and found the defendant and a woman in the vehicle. The defendant and his companion provided the police with identification, and the defendant informed the officers that he owned the vehicle.

Reportedly, the officers were informed by dispatch that the defendant was a convicted felon but that he did not have any outstanding warrants. The officers then spotted a gun in the backseat of the vehicle and made the defendant exit the vehicle. The officers subsequently obtained a search warrant and removed a loaded gun from the back seat. The defendant was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm. Prior to the trial, he moved to suppress all evidence and statements due to unlawful seizure. Following a hearing, the trial court ruled that the seizure was based on a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and therefore, was lawful. The defendant was convicted and sentenced to thirty-six months imprisonment, after which he appealed.

Court Reverses Washington Firearm Conviction Due to Use of Profile Evidence

Published on: April 24, 2019 | By The Law Offices of Smith & White, PLLC

Under Washington law, the State must prove each element of a crime to rightfully convict a defendant. For example, if a defendant is charged with possessing a stolen firearm the State must provide evidence showing that the defendant possessed a stolen firearm and acted with knowledge that the firearm was stolen. If the State does not have strong enough evidence to show the defendant actually knew the firearm he or she possessed was stolen in most cases, the State may try to rely on profile testimony in support of the charge. This was illustrated in a recent Washington appellate case, where a defendant’s conviction for possession of a stolen firearm was overturned after the State relied on testimony that because the defendant was a convicted felon he was more likely to possess a stolen firearm. If you are charged with a firearm crime in Washington it is critical to retain a seasoned Washington weapons charge defense attorney to assist you in precluding any evidence the State should not be permitted to introduce against you.

Facts Regarding the Crime and Trial

Allegedly, in June 2015, the defendant was confronted by a police officer pursuant to an outstanding warrant. The defendant ran away from the officer and threw a gun while he was running. The officer ultimately apprehended the defendant and retrieved the gun, which was reported stolen in October 2014. The defendant, who was a convicted felon, was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm and possession of a stolen firearm.

It is reported that during the trial, the State introduced testimony from multiple police officers regarding how convicted felons obtain guns. The officers each testified that “they” will steal them or buy them off the street. Further, the prosecuting attorney in his closing argument stated that it would be impossible to prove the defendant had actual knowledge that the gun was stolen, but “that’s how these guys are getting them.” The defendant was convicted of both charges after which he appealed the possession of a stolen firearm charge.
Continue reading

Washington Court Discusses a Defendant’s Right to Confront Witnesses

Published on: April 17, 2019 | By The Law Offices of Smith & White, PLLC

Criminal defendants are afforded the right to a meaningful defense by both the Washington and United States Constitutions. This means, in part, that a criminal defendant has the right to confront any witnesses who testify in support of the State’s position. If a criminal defendant is not afforded the right to a meaningful defense, it can be grounds for seeking a reversal of any conviction obtained by the State, as illustrated in a case recently decided by the Washington Court of Appeals. In that case, the court reversed the defendant’s conviction, due to the fact that the defendant was convicted of assault without being permitted to question witnesses regarding facts surrounding the alleged assault. If you are a Washington resident charged with assault you should speak with a capable Washington assault defense attorney to discuss your rights under the law.

The Alleged Assault

Reportedly, the defendant’s assault charges arose out of an altercation with the victim. The victim drove the defendant to the hospital due to an eye injury. When the defendant was discharged, he discovered the victim had left. The defendant had no money or cell phone, so he sold his watch to pay for a taxi to drive him home. He subsequently went to the victim’s house and demanded money from him, arguing that the victim’s abandonment forced him to sell his watch. The victim refused to pay, after which the defendant left.

Allegedly, a few days later the defendant returned to the victim’s house with a friend. What transpired at the victim’s house is disputed between the parties. It was conceded that the defendant and the victim engaged in an altercation, but it was disputed whether the victim had a knife during the altercation. When the friend was examined by the State’s attorney regarding what happened, he testified he believed the victim had a knife. He admitted he had previously told the police he did not think the victim was armed, however, and that he never saw the victim with a knife. When he was cross-examined by defense counsel regarding the inconsistencies in his account, the State’s attorney objected to the line of questioning and the court sustained the objection, halting any further testimony on the matter. Further, during closing arguments, the State stated multiple times that the friend testified that the victim did not have a weapon. The defendant was convicted of his charges, after which he appealed.
Continue reading

Court Rules a Mid-trial Change to the Charging Information is Improper

Published on: April 13, 2019 | By The Law Offices of Smith & White, PLLC

Under Washington law, a defendant can only be convicted of the crime for which he or she was charged, or a lesser included offense of that charge. Thus, if the State charges a defendant with violation of a protective order but fails to offer proof to establish the defendant committed the crime as charged, the State cannot then modify the information to change the elements of the alleged crime. This was illustrated in a case recently decided by the Washington Court of Appeals in which the court reversed a defendant’s conviction for violation of a protective order, following the State’s mid-trial amendment of the information charging the defendant. If you live in Washington and are charged with violation of a protective order it is in your best interest to consult a skilled Washington domestic violence defense attorney to discuss potential defenses to the charges you face.

Facts Surrounding the Defendant’s Charges

Reportedly, the defendant and his wife were in the process of divorcing when the wife obtained a protective order against the defendant. The order prohibited the defendant from contacting the wife or entering either of the two properties they previously inhabited together. However, the defendant was advised he could contact the sheriff’s department to assist him in obtaining his belongings from one of the properties. The defendant was also personally served with the order. The defendant was subsequently arrested after his truck was seen at one of the properties. The truck was searched at it was found that both the defendant’s and the plaintiff’s belongings were in the truck. The defendant was found on the property charged with violating the protective order and second-degree burglary.

It is alleged that after the State rested its case at trial, the defendant testified that he was at the property to return the plaintiff’s belongings and pick up his belongings. Further, he admitted the property was subject to the protective order. The defendant moved to dismiss the violation of the protective order charge, however, due to the fact that the information alleged he violated the order by contacting the wife. The State then moved to amend the information to allege that the defendant violated the order by entering a protected property. The State’s motion was granted and the defendant was found guilty, after which he appealed.
Continue reading