279 P.3d 990
Wash. Ct. App.2012Background
- Wilson challenged a first degree murder conviction based on an accomplice theory of felony murder and collaterally attacked under CrR 7.8 within one year of final judgment.
- A 2001 motion for relief from judgment was transferred to this court but administrative error left it unacted for over a decade.
- Trial included an accomplice instruction using 'a crime' rather than 'the crime,' which Cronin and Roberts later held to be erroneous.
- Wilson’s ineffective assistance theory focused on defense counsel’s proposed defective instruction and the impact on the trial verdict.
- The court held the abandonment issue resolved in Wilson’s favor, addressing the petition on the merits and granting relief.
- The court ordered a new trial, finding the defective instruction prejudiced Wilson and undermined confidence in the outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the accomplice instruction was unlawful | Wilson | Davis | Instruction impermissibly lowered the burden; error reversible |
| Whether defense counsel's performance was deficient and prejudicial | Wilson's ineffective assistance claim tied to the faulty instruction | State | Counsel deficient; prejudice shown; new trial granted |
| Whether the petition was abandoned due to administrative transfer failure | Wilson did not abandon; complied with rules | State | No abandonment; petition addressed on merits |
| Whether additional claims were properly timed and permissible under RCW 10.73.100 | Wilson timely raised misconduct and sufficiency grounds under exceptions | State | Prosecutorial misconduct time-barred; insufficiency claim dismissed as mixed petition |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cronin, 142 Wn.2d 568 (2000) (accomplice instruction error in Cronin/Roberts)
- State v. Roberts, 142 Wn.2d 471 (2000) (accomplice liability limits; error in pattern instruction)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Davis, 152 Wn.2d 647 (2004) (new points of fact/law; allowed under certain conditions)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Stenson, 142 Wn.2d 710 (2001) (new and different grounds for relief; liberal construction)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Domingo, 155 Wn.2d 356 (2005) (pattern instruction flaws; duty to research law)
- State v. Emery, 174 Wn.2d 741 (2012) (burden-shifting argument improper; recent authority not a significant change in law)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Davis, 171 Wn.2d 354 (2011) (cited for discussion on new points of fact and law; comprehensive analysis)