State of Washington v. Charles Donovan Cole
33575-5
Wash. Ct. App.Oct 18, 2016Background
- Cole was convicted of meth possession and two bail jumping counts; evidence shown on Dec 1 bail jump exclusion and pattern of court appearances; defense asserted uncontrollable circumstances for Dec 1; closing arguments contested burden of proof; LFOs imposed despite indigence; conviction on Dec 1 bail jump reversed on appeal and remanded for new trial.
- Initial arrest found meth residue in pipe; misdemeanor warrant led to arrest; bail conditions required personal appearances.
- Two bail jumping counts: Oct 15 and Dec 1; Oct 16 appearance occurred, but Oct 15 missed; Dec 1 allegedly missed due to automobile accident.
- Affirmative defense of uncontrollable circumstances applied to Dec 1 bail jump; evidence of 23 prior appearances argued to show pattern and credibility.
- Court affirmed possession conviction and first bail jumping count; reversed third count (Dec 1) and remanded for new trial; LFOs reviewed but not grounds to reverse due to waiver; due process challenges to RCW 69.50.4013 and RCW 9A.76.170(1) rejected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of bail jumping proof (Oct 15) | State argues evidence showed failure to appear on or about Oct 15. | Cole argues appearance on Oct 16 was in substance Oct 15. | Sufficient to prove failure to appear on or about Oct 15. |
| Admission of 23 prior appearances | State contends prior appearances were irrelevant | Cole contends evidence bears on uncontrollable circumstances defense | Error to exclude; not harmless; reversal as to Dec 1 count only. |
| Closing argument on burdens of proof | State argues defense misstates burden; closing within instruction. | Cole argues improper discussion of higher burden (clear and convincing). | Court did not abuse discretion; trial court limited to given instructions. |
| Constitutionality of RCW 69.50.4013 | Statute is strict liability, no mens rea, due process concerns. | Statute constitutionally permits unwitting possession defense. | Statute constitutional; no due process violation. |
| Constitutionality of RCW 9A.76.170(1) | Same due process challenge as above; burden on defendant. | Affirmative defense does not negate element; statute valid. | Statute constitutional; no due process violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bradshaw v. State, 152 Wn.2d 528 (Wash. 2004) (possession statute lacks mens rea; unwitting possession defense allowed)
- State v. Ball, 97 Wn. App. 534 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999) (knowledge may be established by signed notices; knowledge element discussed)
- State v. Downing, 122 Wn. App. 185 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004) (bail jumping knowledge elements and defenses explained)
- Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225 (U.S. 1957) (limits on strict liability and due process considerations)
- State v. Schmeling, 191 Wn. App. 795 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015) (reaffirms strict liability possession statute validity)
- Shelton v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., 802 F. Supp. 2d 1289 (M.D. Fla. 2011) (Florida due process challenges; interpretation and deference discussed)
- Adkins, 96 So. 3d 412 (Fla. 2012) (Florida due process discussion on strict liability offenses)