In re Pers. Restraint of Sandoval
408 P.3d 675
| Wash. | 2018Background
- Eduardo Sandoval, an Eastside Lokotes Surefios (ELS) member, participated in planning and facilitating a retaliatory gang shooting on Feb. 7, 2010; shooters fired into a car, killing Camilla Love and injuring Joshua Love.
- Sandoval attended planning meetings, rode with a lookout (Gonzales), reported police locations to the van occupants, and later helped move a suspected van driver to Mexico; he was not one of the shooters.
- Charged with first-degree murder (murder by extreme indifference), first-degree assault, and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder by extreme indifference; codefendants pleaded; Sandoval went to jury trial and was convicted on all counts.
- Post-conviction, Sandoval filed a personal restraint petition (PRP) raising multiple claims including erroneous jury instructions, prosecutorial misconduct, and that accomplice liability / conspiracy for murder by extreme indifference are not cognizable.
- The Washington Supreme Court granted the PRP in part: it reversed Sandoval’s murder conviction (count I) because the trial court wrongly denied a requested lesser-included instruction on first-degree manslaughter; it affirmed other rulings and held accomplice liability and conspiracy for murder by extreme indifference are cognizable offenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by denying requested lesser-included instruction on 1st‑degree manslaughter | Sandoval: evidence could support manslaughter instead of extreme‑indifference murder; jury should have been permitted to consider lesser offense | State: evidence supported murder by extreme indifference; no manslaughter instruction required | Court: Reversed — under State v. Henderson, defendant entitled to manslaughter instruction when evidence, viewed for defendant, permits rational jury to find lesser offense. |
| Whether the court erred by refusing cautionary instruction on accomplice testimony | Sandoval: accomplice testimony was not substantially corroborated; cautionary instruction required | State: accomplice testimony was substantially corroborated by statements, meeting testimony, stolen van, and other witness evidence | Court: Denied relief — trial court reasonably found substantial corroboration; no error. |
| Whether accomplice liability and conspiracy for murder by extreme indifference are cognizable crimes | Sandoval: such inchoate liability is inconsistent because extreme‑indifference murder lacks specific intent required for conspiracy/accomplice theory | State: statute and precedent permit punishing agreement or assistance in conduct that creates a grave risk of death even if death is unintended | Court: Affirmed — accomplice liability and conspiracy are available; focus is on agreement/intent to engage in culpable conduct (creating grave risk), not intent to cause death. |
| Whether prosecutor’s rebuttal remarks ("OG" and racial comparisons) constituted prejudicial misconduct | Sandoval: prosecutor improperly invoked OG status and racial distinctions to inflame jury and appeal to bias | State: remarks were reasonable inferences from trial evidence and not intended to appeal to racial bias | Court: Some "OG" references improper but not prejudicial; racial comment not shown to be improper or to meet heightened standard — no reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Henderson, 182 Wn.2d 734 (Wash. 2015) (defendant entitled to lesser‑included instruction when evidence, viewed in light most favorable to defendant, could rationally support the lesser offense)
- State v. Workman, 90 Wn.2d 443 (Wash. 1978) (two‑part test for lesser‑included instruction)
- State v. Jensen, 164 Wn.2d 943 (Wash. 2008) (conspiracy is an inchoate crime punishing agreement and preparatory steps)
- State v. Dunbar, 117 Wn.2d 587 (Wash. 1991) (discussion of mens rea for murder by extreme indifference and limits on attempt liability)
- State v. Allen, 182 Wn.2d 364 (Wash. 2015) (definition and proof of ‘‘actual knowledge’’ for accomplice liability)
- United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671 (U.S. 1975) (conspiracy requires intent to engage in the culpable conduct, not greater intent regarding the ultimate status of victims)