375 P.3d 1096
Wash. Ct. App.2016Background
- In April 2008 three victims were robbed and shot at; Anthony Kongchunji and Matthew Dunham were arrested and identified others as participants. Kongchunji later gave conflicting statements; Dunham cooperated and testified against Robert Larson, Tyler Gassman, and Paul Statler at trial.
- The three were convicted in February 2009 of first‑degree robbery, assault, and drive‑by shooting; postconviction motions for new trial were denied on appeal.
- On CrR 7.8 motions the trial court found trial counsel ineffective for failing to obtain key exculpatory evidence (victim time records, Dunham’s phone records, witness Shane Neilson) and vacated the convictions in 2012; prosecutors subsequently dismissed charges for insufficient evidence in 2013.
- The claimants sued under the Wrongly Convicted Persons Act (WCPA), RCW 4.100, seeking statutory compensation; the trial court found they failed to prove two WCPA elements: (4) convictions vacated/dismissed on the basis of "significant new exculpatory information," and (5) "actually innocent."
- The Court of Appeals (Div. III) reviews statutory interpretation issues de novo and evidentiary/admissibility decisions for abuse of discretion; the opinion addresses proper constructions of "significant new exculpatory information," RCW 4.100.060(3) (admissibility), and the burden for "actually innocent."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of "significant new exculpatory information" under WCPA | "New" should include information available at trial but not presented (broad/remedial reading) | "New" means information unavailable at trial (narrow reading) | Court holds "new" is broad: may include evidence available but not presented; statute construed liberally to effect remedial purpose |
| Whether convictions were vacated/dismissed based on the new information | Vacatur/dismissal flowed from the unpresented exculpatory evidence uncovered postconviction (so element satisfied) | State contends evidence was not truly exculpatory or critical | Court: criminal court vacated convictions because of that newly presented exculpatory information; element satisfied; trial court erred in finding otherwise |
| Admissibility of unavailable witness's recorded interview under RCW 4.100.060(3) | Statute loosens evidence rules; recording should be admitted despite hearsay given witness unavailability and passage of time | Recording is hearsay, unsworn, and would prevent State's cross‑examination; trial court should exclude it | Court holds RCW 4.100.060(3) authorizes admitting otherwise inadmissible evidence but trial court did not abuse discretion in excluding this particular recording (not manifestly unreasonable) |
| Burden to prove "actually innocent" (WCPA element) | Clear and convincing evidence (per RCW 4.100.060 which sets that standard) | Trial court applied a higher, "truly persuasive/extraordinarily high" standard drawn from habeas/PRP actual innocence jurisprudence | Court holds claimants must prove actual innocence by clear and convincing evidence; trial court erred by imposing a higher standard and remands for factual determination |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Riofta, 166 Wn.2d 358 (Wash. 2009) (interpreting "significant new information" in postconviction DNA context broadly to include evidence not considered by original factfinder)
- Newton v. State, 192 Wn. App. 931 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016) (WCPA pro se/summary judgment context discussing requirement of "new information")
- Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (U.S. 1993) (federal actual innocence standards discussed in habeas corpus context)
- Go2net, Inc. v. FreeYellow.com, Inc., 158 Wn.2d 247 (Wash. 2006) (remedial statutes are construed liberally)
- State v. Baldwin, 63 Wn. App. 303 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991) (standard for appellate review of trial court evidentiary discretion)