State Of Washington v. Benjamin Joseph Hamel
48523-1
| Wash. Ct. App. | Mar 14, 2017Background
- On August 19, 2015, Officer Spencer Berntsen contacted Benjamin Hamel near a store; an encounter escalated and Hamel kicked Berntsen, who deployed a Taser; multiple civilian witnesses corroborated the assault.
- Hamel was charged with third-degree assault; jury found him guilty and the court sentenced him to 36 months confinement plus 12 months community custody.
- Pretrial, the State moved to exclude inquiry into a 2009 30-day suspension of Officer Berntsen for untruthfulness/insubordination; the trial court excluded that specific-instance impeachment under ER 608(b).
- At trial, the prosecutor argued in rebuttal that the reasonable-doubt instruction equated to an "abiding belief" and said, "In your gut, do you believe that a crime was committed;" Hamel did not object at trial.
- At sentencing the court included a 2003 Arizona conviction (leaving the scene of an injury accident) in Hamel’s offender score and ordered a substance-abuse evaluation; the State concedes the evaluation was unauthorized.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court violated confrontation/ER 608(b) by barring cross-exam on officer's 2009 suspension | State: exclusion proper under ER 403 and remoteness; prejudicial value outweighed probative value | Hamel: suspension is probative of veracity and admissible under ER 608(b) for impeachment | Court: No abuse of discretion; other witnesses corroborated conduct and impeachment was not crucial |
| Whether prosecutor committed misconduct by urging a gut/abiding-belief standard in rebuttal | State: argument was permissible inference and matched jury instruction language | Hamel: argument misstated burden and shifted proof to defendant | Court: Not misconduct; comment not improper in context and jury instructions cure; no prejudice shown |
| Whether reasonable-doubt jury instruction ("abiding belief in the truth of the charge") violated due process | State: instruction is proper formulation of reasonable doubt | Hamel: instruction improperly focuses jury on truth-searching and violates due process | Court: Instruction upheld; consistent with precedent rejecting this challenge |
| Whether sentencing errors require relief: (a) substance-abuse evaluation requirement; (b) inclusion of Arizona conviction in offender score | State: conceded evaluation inappropriate; argued Arizona conviction is comparable and may be scored | Hamel: evaluation exceeds statutory authority; Arizona offense not comparable to Washington statute | Court: Strike substance-abuse evaluation (unauthorized); Arizona conviction was legally and factually comparable so scoring point affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Darden v. State, 145 Wn.2d 612 (2002) (cross-examination's primary purpose is testing perception, memory, credibility)
- O'Connor v. State, 155 Wn.2d 335 (2005) (confrontation right is not absolute; courts may limit cross-examination for vagueness or irrelevance)
- McSorley v. State, 128 Wn. App. 598 (2005) (abuse-of-discretion review for ER 608(b) exclusions; greater latitude when witness is essential)
- Clark v. State, 143 Wn.2d 731 (2001) (denial of ER 608(b) cross-examination is an abuse when witness is crucial and impeachment is the only available means)
- Emery v. State, 174 Wn.2d 741 (2012) (standard for prosecutorial misconduct and when failure to object requires showing incurable prejudice)
- Curtiss v. State, 161 Wn. App. 673 (2011) (similar "gut/heart" rebuttal argument not found to be misconduct in context)
- Thiefault v. State, 160 Wn.2d 409 (2007) (two-part test for comparability of foreign convictions: legal then factual comparability)
- Jenson v. State, 194 Wn. App. 900 (2016) (rejecting due process challenge to "abiding belief" reasonable-doubt instruction)