State of Washington v. Billy Charles Brown
34965-9
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jun 1, 2017Background
- DOC probation officer Bethany Clemons supervised Billy Brown on community custody; Brown refused a requested urinalysis and was taken to jail on Dec. 17, 2015.
- At the jail, mental health coordinator Virginia Walker met Brown; Walker's written report (within an hour) stated Brown threatened to "hurt" Clemons, though she later told others Brown said he would "kill" Clemons.
- A jail custody officer relayed a message to DOC that Brown had threatened to kill Clemons; Clemons was told he threatened to kill her and testified she feared he might hurt or kill her based on his history.
- At trial, Walker testified she remembered Brown saying "I will kill her if I have to work with her again," but the court found her in-court testimony less credible than her contemporaneous report.
- The State charged Brown with felony harassment of a criminal justice participant (RCW 9A.46.020); the trial court convicted and sentenced Brown to 51 months, finding Clemons reasonably feared the threat she received.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the State failed to prove Clemons reasonably feared the specific threat Brown actually made (threat to hurt), rather than the higher-level threat she was told (threat to kill).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State must prove the victim reasonably feared the specific threat actually made | State: If victim reasonably feared a communicated death threat, that includes fear of bodily injury, satisfying statute | Brown: Victim feared a different, more serious threat than he actually made; statute requires fear of the same threat | Held: Yes. The State must prove fear of the actual threat; conviction reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216 (discusses sufficiency of evidence standard)
- State v. Engel, 166 Wn.2d 572 (standard for viewing evidence in sufficiency review)
- State v. Homan, 181 Wn.2d 102 (review of conclusions of law de novo)
- State v. Mills, 154 Wn.2d 1 (victim must be placed in reasonable fear that "the threat" will be carried out)
- State v. C.G., 150 Wn.2d 604 (the feared threat must be the same as the threat made; conviction reversed where victim feared a different threat)