Seattle Criminal Case Decisions – 10/16/09

Posted on 2009-10-20, 00:15, by Smalls, under Law.

In case you didn't know, the law, and criminal defense law in particular, are constantly changing. This is because of two factors: first, State Legislatures are constantly coming up with new laws to mess with people and changing old laws because they were broken; and second, criminal defense attorneys are constantly challenging the new (and old) laws, poking holes in them, and forcing the government and the police to recognize and uphold an individual's Constitutional rights.

To keep abreast of these laws, criminal lawyers (like me) must continuously monitor the new decisions that come out every week from the (in my case) Washington State Court of Appeals and Washington State Supreme Court. In most cases a decision on a legal issue relates not only to all criminal cases going forward, but to all going back (especially if it helps a defendant). Because of this, and because I care for my clients, every week I take a look at the new cases that come out of the courts to see if anything has changed. And, since I figured I was checking it out I thought I'd let you know what I found so you can be informed as well.

This week (luckily for me and my fingers), there is only one new case of importance. But, as usual, the decision is an important one and one that could affect individuals going forward for a long time. There are two issues in this case, entitled State v. King: (1) can an officer give his opinion at trial as to whether or not a defendant's actions equate to guilt of a criminal charge?; and (2) what constitutes an emergency under RCW 10.93.070(2) such that an officer can make an arrest when he or she is outside of their jurisdiction?

Before we get to those issues and how it will affect your Seattle criminal case, should you ever have one, let's look at the facts. Though I normally like to talk specifically about Seattle DUI defense, I make exceptions when the case is important enough, as this one is here. In this case, King was charged with reckless driving. The facts behind the case are pretty straightforward. On April 5, 2006, King was riding his motorcycle from Vancouver, Washington, to a Longview, Washington shop where a friend worked. The odometer and speedometer on his bike needed to be fixed, so he was getting them checked out. After meeting his buddy, he decided the repairs were too expensive, and left the shop to go home, taking I-5.

According to King, he was riding down I-5 when a large truck came alongside of him. To let the truck know he was there (he'd been in near accidents before because of this) he stood up on his foot pegs and looked over at the driver of the truck. He thought he was in the truck driver's blind spot, so he sped up to get out of a dangerous situation. After he passed the truck he slowed back down to a normal speed and continued on his way.

At the same time King was taking his motorcycle ride, a cop entered the freeway on his way to work. He was driving an unmarked police car, was a member of the Vancouver police department, and was not within the Vancouver city limits. The cop saw what King was doing and thought it was reckless enough that he pulled King over. King immediately pulled to the side of the road and told the officer why he did what he did. The officer cited him for reckless driving.

King, being the smart guy that he was, hired a Seattle criminal defense attorney to represent him in this case. The first thing the criminal lawyer did was file a motion to dismiss the case because the officer did not have jurisdiction to arrest King (issue number 2 above). The prosecutor, in response, argued that the emergency exception to jurisdiction was applicable in this case because the officer thought imminent threat to property or person existed, and the arrest should be upheld. The court (surprise, surprise), sided with the prosecutor, and the case proceeded to jury trial.

At trial the officer took the stand and testified about what he'd seen King doing out on the highway. A portion of the testimony went like this:

[Prosecutor]: So based on your training, experience and observations of the Defendant's driving, did you form an opinion regarding his driving?

[Officer Starks]: Yes, I did.

[Prosecutor]: And what is that opinion?

[Officer Starks]: I felt that the entire act of what he had done was reckless in my viewpoint.

[Prosecutor]: Okay. And what . . . have you been trained on reckless driving . . . the elements of reckless driving?

[Officer Starks]: Yes.

[Prosecutor]: Okay. So you felt this was within those elements?

[Officer Starks]: I did.

[Prosecutor]: And did you issue him a criminal citation?

[Officer Starks]: I did.

[Prosecutor]: For reckless driving?

[Officer Starks]: Yes I did.

Based on that testimony alone, the jury convicted King of reckless driving. King appealed and here we are today.

As I alluded to above, the Court found two issues were worth discussing in this case. First, can an officer give testimony about whether or not he feels a defendant's conduct met the elements of the offense charged? And second, was the officer acting within the exception to the jurisdiction statute?

Regarding the first question, the court didn't go very deep, but they did provide some good information, whether or not you are a criminal attorney in Seattle or a criminal defendant. What the court said, essentially, is that it is improper for a police officer, or anyone else, at a trial to testify to the ultimate issue of the trial – the defendant's innocence or guilt. What witnesses may testify to are their observations of events, their knowledge of people and events, and, if they are experts, their expertise and how that expertise applies to the case at issue. But whether or not a defendant is guilty, meaning whether or not a defendant's conduct falls within the requirements of any given law, is up to the jury and the jury alone to decide. Anything else is impermissible.

In the end, the court didn't ultimately decide this case on that issue, because the second issue controlled the outcome no matter what. But they did essentially decide that the officer's testimony was outside the purview of what testimony should consist of. This is important if you are a Seattle criminal lawyer, as this issue comes up in trial all the time.

The second issue surrounds whether or not the cop had jurisdiction to stop King, even though he was outside of his jurisdiction and there was no agreement allowing him to act as he did. There is, however, an exception to the jurisdiction requirement under RCW 10.93.070(2), which states:

an officer can also make an arrest in other circumstances enumerated in the statute, including, "[i]n response to an emergency involving an immediate threat to human life or property.

The trial court determined that reckless driving, by its very nature, was included in this exception, since reckless driving requires "willful or wanton disregard for the safety of others." The Supreme Court, however, noted that determining whether or not an emergency exists requires an evaluation over and above the language of the offense charged. There was no evidence that King's actions were out of control or rose to a level that would cause a reasonable person to fear for their safety (the officer's testimony was vague at best regarding what he saw and the speeds King was driving at). And the speeding alone, without some specific circumstances, does not rise to the level of an exception that is described under RCW 10.90.070(2).

The court concluded the decision by holding that King's behavior did not rise to the level of placing anyone in an emergency involving an immediate threat to human life or property and dismissed the case because the officer did not have jurisdiction to effectuate a stop on King.

This is just another example of how a good criminal defense lawyer can make the difference in your case. By turning over every stone, it is often possible to find a fatal flaw in a case or at least some information that substantially weakens the case, resulting in a better outcome for you.

Similar Articles:
Tags: , , , ,
«
»