Domestic Violence

Washington Court Weighs Evidence of Crimes of Domestic Violence

Published on: April 7, 2023 | By The Law Offices of Smith & White, PLLC

The Washington courts staunchly prosecute crimes involving domestic violence, including violations of domestic violence no contact orders. Thus, if a person found guilty of violating such an order has prior domestic violence convictions, it may result in an increased offender score, which in turn can lead to greater penalties. The state must offer sufficient evidence to prove a prior conviction was for a crime of domestic violence in order to justify an increased offender score, though, as discussed in a recent Washington opinion. If you are accused of committing a crime of domestic violence, it is wise to contact a Tacoma domestic violence defense attorney to discuss your options for protecting your rights.

Procedural Background

It is reported that the defendant was charged with and found guilty of violating a domestic violence no-contact order, which was graded as a felony. The trial court sentenced him to 33 months of confinement based on an offender score of five, which included a 2012 conviction for misdemeanor assault, domestic violence. The defendant appealed his judgment and sentence, arguing that the 2012 conviction should not have been included in his offender score as the state had failed to show that domestic violence had been pleaded and proved.

Allegedly, the trial court agreed with the defendant’s argument and remanded the case for resentencing. At the resentencing hearing, the state produced evidence showing that the 2012 conviction qualified for inclusion in the defendant’s offender score based on domestic violence being both pleaded and proved. As such, the trial court reinstated the defendant’s 33-month sentence, and he appealed again. Continue reading

¿Cuándo un oficial de policía podría usar fuerza física?

Published on: October 21, 2022 | By The Law Offices of Smith & White, PLLC

police-force-300x300 Una de las posibles peores situaciones que podemos experimentar es el de tener una conversación con un representante de la justicia como posibles sospechosos de haber realizado algo en contra la ley. En esta situación, tal vez busquemos cooperar con las autoridades en todo lo posible, pero, ¿qué sucede en el caso de que sean las mismas autoridades las que no sigan los protocolos o usan mayor fuerza de la debida?

Los legisladores han hecho esfuerzos para establecer mayores límites y definiciones sobre los escenarios en los que un agente de policía podría hacer uso de la fuerza física. Uno de estos instrumentos es la ley HB 1310.

Lo que dice la ley

En uno de sus primeros mandatos, apela al buen juicio de cada integrante del cuerpo de policía y los invita a buscar alternativas o tácticas que no impliquen fuerza para controlar una situación. De hecho, se menciona que, a partir del 6 de diciembre de 2018, todo policía debe recibir capacitación en métodos alternativos para evitar el uso de la fuerza física.

Court Explains the Government’s Burden of Proof in Washington Weapons Crime Cases

Published on: August 8, 2022 | By The Law Offices of Smith & White, PLLC

weapon-300x300 Generally, people in Tacoma have the right to own and possess firearms. The right is not inalienable, however, and in certain situations may be taken away. For example, people convicted of felony offenses are typically barred from possessing firearms, and may face criminal charges if they are caught with a gun in their possession. As with all criminal offenses, to establish the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm the state must prove each element in order to demonstrate the defendant’s guilt. Recently, a Washington court issued a ruling in which it discussed the government’s burden of proof in weapons crime cases. If you are a Tacoma resident and are charged with a weapons crime, it is prudent to confer with a skilled Tacoma weapons charge defense attorney to assess your possible defenses.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was charged with two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm and one count of unlawful possession of ammunition in violation of federal law. Prior to trial, the defendant filed numerous motions in limine, asking the court to preclude the government from introducing certain evidence at trial. The parties also presented a proposed stipulation regarding certain elements of the charged offenses. As the specifics of the stipulation were unclear, the court reserved judgment on the issue.

The Government’s Burden of Proof in Weapons Crime Cases

The court explained that the offenses that the defendant was charged with required the government to prove that the defendant was previously convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term that exceeds one year. The defendant indicated that he would stipulate at trial that he had at least one felony conviction that was punishable by imprisonment for more than a year prior to being charged with the subject crimes, however. The government accepted that stipulation and stated it would not attempt to introduce specifics of his felony conviction at trial. Continue reading

Washington Court Discusses Unjust Sentences in Domestic Violence Cases

Published on: August 1, 2022 | By The Law Offices of Smith & White, PLLC

father-and-son-300x300 A conviction for a domestic violence crime may not only result in criminal penalties, but it may also negatively impact a person’s relationships. For example, courts may determine that parents guilty of committing domestic violence offenses should be denied access to their children. Courts may only limit parental rights if it is necessary for the protection of children, though, and any order limiting their rights should be narrow in duration and scope. Recently, a Washington court issued an opinion discussing when the courts may impinge on the fundamental right to parent in a domestic violence matter. If you are accused of a crime of domestic violence, it is advisable to meet with a Tacoma domestic violence defense attorney to assess your options for seeking a favorable result.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported the defendant and his wife were married in 2003 and separated in 2016. In 2017, the wife obtained a domestic violence protection order that, in part, limited the defendant’s access to his children. A second order was issued prohibiting him from seeing the children, but his wife continued to allow him access to them despite the order. In 2018, the defendant became angry the wife was dating someone and entered her home without his permission.

Allegedly, once he was inside the home, he assaulted his wife and threatened to kill her. He was charged with and convicted of numerous domestic violence offenses. The sentencing court entered a lifetime no-contact order protecting the children. The defendant appealed. Continue reading

Tribunal de Washington Explica Evidencia Suficiente Para Establecer Identidad En Casos Penales

Published on: July 21, 2022 | By The Law Offices of Smith & White, PLLC

En materia penal, la carga de la prueba recae únicamente en la acusación. En otras palabras, la acusación debe ofrecer pruebas suficientes para establecer no solo que se cometió un delito, sino también que el acusado es la persona que cometió el delito imputado. Si la fiscalía no puede cumplir con su carga de la prueba, el acusado no debe ser condenado. Esto se explicó recientemente en un fallo en el que un tribunal de Washington revocó la condena por agresión de un acusado con el argumento de que la fiscalía no cumplió con su carga de la prueba. Si lo acusaron de un delito de agresión, es aconsejable reunirse con un abogado defensor de agresión de Tacoma capacitado para evaluar qué evidencia puede presentar el Estadoen el juicio.

Los Hechos Del Caso

Se alega que la policía de Tacoma respondió a una llamada al 911 informando sobre violencia doméstica. Durante la llamada, la víctima identificó a su presunto agresor por su nombre. Luego, el Estado acusó al acusado de múltiples cargos de agresión con agravantes de violencia doméstica. La víctima no compareció en el juicio, a pesar de que los fiscales emitieron una orden para obligarla a comparecer. El Estado juzgó el caso sin el testimonio de la víctima. Según se informa, durante el juicio, el acusado se presentó por su nombre y el oficial que respondió a la llamada al 911 testificó que la víctima identificó a su atacante y que la persona a la que nombró tenía el mismo nombre que el acusado. El jurado finalmente condenó al acusado, quien apeló, argumentando que el Estado no presentó pruebas suficientes para establecer que él era el agresor de la víctima. Continue reading

Washington Court Discusses Proving Intent in Criminal Cases

Published on: June 13, 2022 | By The Law Offices of Smith & White, PLLC

In criminal cases, the state bears the burden of proof. Specifically, in order to prove a criminal defendant’s guilt, the state must establish each element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. In many instances, this means that the state has to prove the defendant acted with intent. In such cases, if the defendant is convicted despite a lack of evidence that they acted knowingly, their conviction may be reversed. This was illustrated recently in a Washington matter in which the court found that the state failed to prove that the defendant knowingly violated his domestic violence no-contact order. If you are charged with a crime of domestic violence, it is smart to contact a Tacoma domestic violence defense lawyer regarding your potential defenses.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was subject to a domestic violence no-contact order that prevented him from coming within 500 feet of his estranged wife’s home. In September 2020, the wife’s neighbor saw the defendant walking in his backyard. The neighbor approached the defendant to ask him what he was doing on his property. Instead of responding, the defendant began to run and subsequently ran in front of his estranged wife’s trailer.

It is alleged that following the incident, the defendant was charged with numerous crimes, including felony violation of the domestic violence no-contact order. He waived his right to a jury trial, and the case proceeded to a bench trial. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly violated the terms of his no-contact order. Thus, he was convicted. He then appealed. Continue reading

Washington Court Rejects Appeal Due to the Failure to Preserve the Issue at Trial

Published on: May 11, 2022 | By The Law Offices of Smith & White, PLLC

Typically, witnesses for the state must testify in person, and if the state attempts to introduce a person’s out-of-court statements instead of offering them as a witness at trial, their statements may be precluded as hearsay. If the defendant engaged in certain wrongful acts that prevented the person from testifying, though, the court may find that the defendant forfeited the right to object to the submission of out-of-court statements. This issue arose in a recent Washington domestic violence case in which the court ultimately determined that the defendant waived the right to an appeal by failing to raise the issue at trial. If you are charged with a domestic violence crime, it is prudent to confer with a Tacoma domestic violence defense lawyer at Smith & White, PLLC to assess your rights.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was charged with multiple counts of violating a domestic violence protection order. When he was in jail after his arrest, he made numerous calls to the victim and asked her not to testify against him at trial. She agreed and, in her absence, the state introduced calls the defendant made from jail to the number used by the victim when she called 911 to report the initial violation. The jury deemed the defendant guilty, and he appealed.

The Forfeiture by Wrongdoing Exception to Hearsay

On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court erred by admitting the phone calls into evidence because it presumed that he was the caller instead of finding that the evidence demonstrating he was the caller was cogent, clear, and convincing. The court explained that the rule against hearsay does not apply if a party engages in wrongdoing that constitutes a waiver of the hearsay rule. The appellate court noted, though, that the point was moot as the defendant did not object when the state offered the subject calls into evidence at trial and expressly stated that he did not contest the issue of identity. Continue reading

Washington Court Discusses Fifth Amendment Rights in a Domestic Violence Case

Published on: May 14, 2021 | By The Law Offices of Smith & White, PLLC

One of the fundamental rights provided by both the Constitution and state law is the protection against self-incrimination. In other words, parties cannot be compelled to submit to interrogation that would force them to make statements that would implicate their guilt. If a party says something incriminating on his or her own volition, though, the statement may be admissible as evidence at a criminal trial. In a recent Washington domestic violence matter, an appellate court issued an opinion discussing the nuances of the right against self-incrimination, ultimately upholding the trial court’s decision to admit incriminating statements. If you are charged with a domestic violence offense, it is smart to meet with a Washington domestic violence defense lawyer to discuss your rights.

The Alleged Attack

Reportedly, the defendant became suspicious that his girlfriend was having an affair. He drove to a location where she was meeting with another man and, when he arrived, slammed his truck into reverse, striking his girlfriend’s vehicle. The defendant’s girlfriend, who was getting into the car at the time, fell to the ground, suffering injuries. The police arrested the defendant and charged him with numerous crimes, including domestic violence assault. Prior to trial, the defendant moved to suppress statements he made in a phone call to his girlfriend regarding the assault, but the court denied his motion. He was convicted, after which he appealed, arguing, in part, that the trial court erred in denying his motion.

Protections Against Self-Incrimination

On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court deprived him of his right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Washington law because the phone call with his girlfriend constituted a custodial interrogation. The court rejected his argument. The court explained that pursuant to the Miranda ruling, a person accused of a crime has the right to an attorney during a custodial interrogation, even if the State has not filed formal charges against the person. Continue reading

Washington Court Discusses Evidence of Other Acts in Assault Cases

Published on: March 16, 2021 | By The Law Offices of Smith & White, PLLC

Criminal defendants are afforded the right to a fair trial. Among other things, this means that the State cannot introduce evidence that a defendant engaged in other wrongs, crimes, or bad acts to show that the defendant has bad character and acted in conformance with that character in committing the underlying offense. Such evidence may be admitted for other reasons, though, as long as it is not overly prejudicial. Recently, a Washington court issued an opinion discussing the preclusion of evidence of other wrongs and crimes in a case where the defendant appealed his numerous convictions for assault. If you are accused of committing an assault crime, it is in your best interest to meet with a trusted Washington criminal defense attorney to assess your possible defenses.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was arrested and charged with two counts of fourth-degree assault. The charges arose out of an altercation with his girlfriend. Prior to trial, the defendant moved to preclude the State from introducing evidence that he owned weapons. The trial court denied his motion, and during the trial, the State offered testimony indicating that the defendant owned a gun and kept it in the home he shared with his girlfriend. The jury found the defendant guilty as charged, after which he appealed, arguing the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his gun ownership.

Admission of Evidence of Other Crimes, Bad Acts, and Wrongs

Under Washington law, evidence of bad acts, crimes, or wrongs is inadmissible to demonstrate a person’s character or to show that the person acted in conformance with that character. Trial courts have to begin with the assumption that such evidence should not be admitted. It is permissible to admit it, however, if it is introduced to show intent, knowledge, or a lack of mistake. Continue reading

Washington Court Discusses Evidence of Prior Wrongs in Domestic Violence Cases

Published on: February 14, 2021 | By The Law Offices of Smith & White, PLLC

Generally, the State is not permitted to introduce evidence of prior bad acts or wrongs to establish that a person violated the law on a certain occasion. In other words, the State cannot point to previous behavior in an effort to convince a jury that a defendant acted similarly on the date of an alleged crime. Evidence of other wrongs may be admitted for other reasons, however. The grounds for admitting evidence of prior acts of domestic violence was the topic of a recent Washington opinion, in a matter involving a felony violation of a no-contact order. If you are accused of a domestic violence offense, it is advisable to speak to a capable Washington domestic violence defense attorney about your rights.

The Alleged Crime

It is reported that the defendant and the victim became romantically involved when they were co-workers. At some point, a no-contact order was entered, preventing the two from associating with each other. Regardless, they saw each other at a party for their former employer. Later that evening, the victim sent a friend messages indicating she had been assaulted by the defendant. The friend went to the victim’s house and observed marks on her leg and face. He then heard someone in the garage and hid in the bathroom, and called 911.

Allegedly, during the 911 call, the defendant could be heard engaging in an altercation with the victim. The police arrived and arrested the defendant, who was charged with felony violation of a no-contact order. He was convicted, after which he appealed, arguing in part that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of prior acts of domestic violence at his trial. Continue reading