State Of Washington, Resp-cross App v. Brian M. Jerue, App-cross, 74027-0

Background

On April 15, 2015, Safeway loss-prevention officer Mitchell Irons observed Brian Jerue take two bottles of whiskey and followed him out of the store.
A physical confrontation occurred: Irons put his hands on Jerue, they tumbled to the ground, and Irons brought Jerue back inside; Jerue slipped free, ran through the store and parking lot, and grabbed a bottle.
At the southeast corner of the parking lot Jerue raised the bottle over his head, asked if Irons had “ever been hit over the head with a bottle,” and said he was a convicted felon who wasn’t afraid to hit Irons.
Irons testified he was afraid he would be struck and stopped pursuing; police later arrested Jerue with a bottle bearing the store’s security tag.
Jerue was convicted by a jury of second-degree robbery (and third-degree assault, though sentenced only for robbery). The trial court excluded cross-examination probing Irons’s violation of employer policy forbidding physical contact.
On appeal Jerue challenged (1) sufficiency of evidence that he used or threatened force to obtain the liquor and (2) a Confrontation Clause violation by exclusion of evidence about Irons’s policy violations; he also contested appellate costs based on indigency.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Jerue)	Held
Sufficiency: whether evidence showed use or threatened use of force to take property	The raised bottle and verbal threats constituted an implied, immediate threat of force sufficient for robbery	Jerue argued the conduct (raising bottle, asking if Irons had been hit) was not a threat—he did not lunge or strike	Court held evidence sufficient: raising/brandishing bottle plus statements would make a reasonable person infer a threat; supports robbery conviction
Confrontation / cross-examination: whether excluding evidence of Irons’s employer-policy violations violated right to confront witness	The exclusion did not unconstitutionally bar relevant impeachment; bias evidence must be relevant to a material issue	Jerue argued policy-violation evidence was relevant to Irons’s motive to lie/exaggerate and central because Irons was the key witness	Court held no violation: the policy violation was not relevant to whether Jerue threatened force; jury already knew Irons tackled Jerue; other impeachment was allowed
Admission of impeachment evidence: scope of permissible cross-examination about prior similar conduct	State maintained relevance was limited and the policy-violation evidence was not probative of the core element (threat)	Jerue contended prior aggressive captures showed motive to fabricate or exaggerate threat	Court held the trial court properly exercised discretion to exclude irrelevant evidence of policy violations
Appellate costs given indigency	State would normally be awarded costs on affirmance	Jerue argued continued indigency precludes appellate costs	Court exercised discretion to deny appellate costs to State under presumption of continued indigency (RAP 15.2(f))

Key Cases Cited

State v. Witherspoon, 180 Wn.2d 875 (robbery intimidation objective test)
State v. Shcherenkov, 146 Wn. App. 619 (implied threat can be based on conduct such as brandishing)
State v. Farnsworth, 185 Wn.2d 768 (threat need not be explicit; words or conduct may imply intent)
State v. Handburgh, 119 Wn.2d 284 (any threat that induces owner to part with property suffices for robbery)
State v. Sinclair, 192 Wn. App. 380 (RAP 15.2(f) presumption of continued indigency on appeal)