Personal Restraint Petition of Christopher Owens
32694-2
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jan 31, 2017Background
- Christopher Owens shot and killed Richard Tyler after Tyler entered the house of Owens's mother, Kellie Brown, in violation of a protection order; Owens admitted the shootings and was convicted of first‑degree murder after a second trial following a mistrial.
- Owens's first appointed counsel had requested and received court funding for a psychiatric/domestic violence evaluation; his second counsel (Crowley) did not obtain or discuss such an evaluation and did not consult a domestic violence expert at trial.
- At trial Owens asserted self‑defense and defense of others (his mother); the jury rejected the defense and convicted him; on direct appeal the conviction was affirmed and ineffective‑assistance claims were not raised.
- In the personal restraint petition (PRP), Owens produced a domestic violence expert report (Dr. April Gerlock) describing Owens’s childhood exposure to domestic violence and explaining why Owens’s perceptions of imminent danger were reasonable; additional lay declarations described forced entry to the garage and witnesses who could corroborate Brown’s fear of Tyler.
- A reference hearing and the superior court found Crowley negligent for failing to pursue the authorized psychiatric evaluation, for not communicating with prior counsel, and for lacking sufficient understanding of domestic violence; the Court of Appeals majority concluded counsel’s failures were deficient and prejudicial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to consult/obtain a domestic‑violence expert | Owens: expert was necessary to explain battered‑person dynamics and make his fear objectively reasonable to a jury | State/Crowley: expert unnecessary; would have risked painting Owens as violent and added little to facts already known | Held: counsel deficient; failure to consult expert was unreasonable and prejudicial — reversal and new trial warranted |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and call lay witnesses (neighbors, garage inspector) | Owens: these witnesses would have corroborated that Tyler forced entry and that Brown feared Tyler, bolstering reasonableness of perception of danger | State: garage door timing is immaterial; witnesses not outcome‑determinative | Held: failure to investigate these witnesses was deficient; their testimony was material though prejudice from each alone uncertain; compounded the prejudice from expert omission |
| Whether cumulative errors warrant relief | Owens: combined deficiencies deprived him of a fair trial | State: Crowley secured self‑defense instruction and reasonably tried the case; any deficiencies were not prejudicial | Held: cumulative effect (expert omission + investigative failures) undermined confidence in outcome; PRP granted and conviction reversed |
| Whether self‑defense was legally available/adequate even with expert evidence | Owens: expert would help jurors assess reasonableness of his perceptions and support self‑defense/defense of others | State/Dissent: objective reasonableness and execution‑style facts undermine any self‑defense claim; expert could help prosecution and risked motive evidence | Held: court did not decide all evidentiary nuances for retrial but concluded expert testimony could reasonably have changed outcome; self‑defense instruction had been given and expert testimony was material |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two‑part ineffective assistance test)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (deference to strategic choices but necessity of adequate investigation in some cases)
- Hinton v. Alabama, 134 S. Ct. 1081 (expert consultation may be essential when only reasonable defense requires it)
- State v. Allery, 101 Wn.2d 591 (expert testimony on battered‑woman syndrome can help jurors evaluate reasonableness)
- State v. Janes, 121 Wn.2d 220 (application of battered‑person evidence to help juror understanding)
- State v. Jones, 183 Wn.2d 327 (counsel’s decision not to call witnesses is afforded deference only if based on adequate investigation)