State Of Washington, V. Darcus D. Allen
54007-0
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jul 27, 2021Background
- In 2011 Allen was convicted of four counts of first-degree murder (as an accomplice); the jury unanimously rejected the RCW 10.95.020(1) aggravated‑murder special verdict (major‑participant/reasonably‑should‑have‑known language) but found a sentencing aggravator under RCW 9.94A.535(3)(v).
- The Washington Supreme Court vacated Allen’s convictions for prosecutorial misconduct (State v. Allen, Allen I) and held on remand that RCW 9.94A.535(3)(v) could apply to an accomplice if the jury finds the elements based on the defendant’s own misconduct.
- On retrial the State refiled charges; Allen moved to dismiss the RCW 10.95.020(1) aggravator on double jeopardy grounds and the trial court granted the motion; the Supreme Court affirmed that RCW 10.95.020(1) could not be realleged (Allen II).
- After the second remand Allen moved to strike the RCW 9.94A.535(3)(v) aggravator, arguing double jeopardy and collateral estoppel barred reprosecution; the trial court granted the motion and the State sought discretionary review.
- The Court of Appeals held the law‑of‑the‑case doctrine did not bar reconsideration, but concluded double jeopardy and collateral estoppel did not preclude charging RCW 9.94A.535(3)(v) because it requires different elements (actual knowledge) than the previously‑submitted RCW 10.95.020(1) instruction (major‑participant and constructive knowledge).
- Court reversed the trial court’s order striking RCW 9.94A.535(3)(v) and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Allen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Law of the case: May Allen relitigate double jeopardy/collateral estoppel over RCW 9.94A.535(3)(v) after prior Supreme Court rulings? | Allen I already approved RCW 9.94A.535(3)(v) applicability on remand; law of the case bars relitigation. | Allen may raise double jeopardy/collateral estoppel because earlier opinions did not decide those issues. | Law of the case does not foreclose trial court consideration; prior opinions did not decide double jeopardy/collateral estoppel for RCW 9.94A.535(3)(v). |
| Double jeopardy: Does the prior unanimous acquittal of the RCW 10.95.020(1) aggravator bar reprosecution under RCW 9.94A.535(3)(v)? | The aggravators are the same in substance; reprosecution is barred. | The statutes require different elements (major‑participant vs actual knowledge), so Blockburger test is not met. | Not barred: Blockburger comparison shows different required facts (major participant vs actual knowledge); reprosecution under RCW 9.94A.535(3)(v) is permitted. |
| Collateral estoppel: Did the earlier special verdict necessarily decide the ultimate facts needed for RCW 9.94A.535(3)(v)? | The jury already resolved the factual questions; collateral estoppel should apply. | The acquittal of RCW 10.95.020(1) did not resolve factual issues unique to RCW 9.94A.535(3)(v). | Not barred: issues are not identical; Allen failed to prove the prior adjudication decided the ultimate facts required for RCW 9.94A.535(3)(v). |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Allen, 182 Wn.2d 364 (2015) (Allen I) (vacated convictions; held RCW 9.94A.535(3)(v) may apply to accomplices if jury finds elements based on defendant's own misconduct)
- State v. Allen, 192 Wn.2d 526 (2018) (Allen II) (held reprosecution on RCW 10.95.020(1) aggravator barred by double jeopardy after unanimous acquittal)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (elements that increase mandatory penalties must be submitted to jury)
- Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania, 537 U.S. 101 (2003) (plurality discussion of jury findings and sentencing facts)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (same‑elements test for double jeopardy)
- State v. Hickman, 135 Wn.2d 97 (1998) (trial is bound to prove facts in the to‑convict instruction even if not required by statute)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Moi, 184 Wn.2d 575 (2015) (collateral estoppel/double jeopardy application when prior adjudication decided identical facts)
- Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970) (collateral estoppel doctrine in criminal context)
- State v. Eggleston, 164 Wn.2d 61 (2008) (special verdicts decide facts for collateral‑estoppel purposes)