In Re Martinez
256 P.3d 277
Wash.2011Background
- Martinez was convicted of first-degree burglary, with evidence allegedly showing he possessed a knife when fleeing from a break-in.
- The knife and sheath were admitted at trial, but no witness described the sheath or its state when found on Martinez.
- A knife was later located in mud about 15 feet from the shop, which Martinez identified as his.
- The State argued the knife was in the process of being drawn; the defense contended the knife was not used or threatened to be used.
- Martinez challenged the conviction via a personal restraint petition (PRP), arguing the State failed to prove the deadly-weapon element and that the evidence was insufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence shows a deadly weapon under RCW 9A.04.110(6). | Martinez: knife never shown as used/threatened. | Martinez: insufficient evidence of attempted use; no proof of willingness. | Insufficient evidence to prove the deadly-weapon element. |
| Whether the PRP is properly before the court despite prior petitions. | Martinez: not barred; petition properly filed. | State: procedural bar applies. | PRP properly before court; not barred. |
| Whether possession of the knife constitutes armed with a deadly weapon under the circumstances. | Martinez: mere possession cannot satisfy unless circumstances show readiness to use. | State: use or attempt to use not proven but possession plus proximity supports armed status. | Under RCW 9A.04.110(6), possession alone is insufficient; circumstances show no attempted or actual use. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gotcher, 52 Wash.App. 350 (1988) (willfulness or present ability to use a knife needed for deadly weapon under 9A.04.110(6))
- State v. Hall, 46 Wash.App. 689 (1987) (deadly weapon per se (firearms) requires no willingness analysis)
- State v. Skenandore, 99 Wash.App. 494 (2000) (circumstances of use to determine deadly weapon under 9A.04.110(6))
- State v. Shilling, 77 Wash.App. 166 (1995) (circumstances of use include intent, present ability, force, injuries)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard: any rational juror could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt)