State Of Washington v. Darin Jerome Gatson
74927-7
| Wash. Ct. App. | Oct 30, 2017Background
- Gatson shoplifted clothing from a department store; a loss-prevention guard pursued him outside.
- The guard caught up on a staircase; Gatson made a sudden thrusting motion; the guard felt a strike, pushed back, and fell down stairs, sustaining cuts and an ankle injury.
- The guard initially told police he had been stabbed, but did not see a weapon; the State proceeded to charge only under the "inflicted bodily injury" prong of first degree robbery (RCW 9A.56.200).
- Gatson was convicted by a jury of first degree robbery and received a 129-month sentence; he appealed challenging several trial rulings.
- The trial court denied a requested lesser-included instruction for third degree theft and gave an expert-witness pattern instruction; the court overruled objections to several prosecutor remarks.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by refusing to instruct on third degree theft as a lesser included offense | State: Elements of theft are encompassed by robbery; evidence showed guard was injured by defendant's conduct, so robbery instruction proper | Gatson: Jury could rationally find injuries resulted from the fall (radio/badge against stomach), not from Gatson's thrust, so theft instruction warranted | Denied: Evidence uncontrovertedly showed Gatson's conduct proximately caused guard's injuries; lesser instruction not required |
| Whether giving the expert-witness pattern instruction was improper | State: Pattern instruction accurately states law regarding expert testimony | Gatson: No witness was qualified as an expert; instruction improperly signaled judge endorsement of police as experts | Denied: Instruction merely stated legal principle and did not misstate law or endorse witnesses |
| Whether prosecutor committed reversible misconduct in closing argument | State: Prosecutor's comments were fair responses, non-prejudicial, and within rebuttal scope | Gatson: Prosecutor misstated facts (suggested witness saw a weapon), used inflammatory imagery, and misstated reasonable-doubt standard | Denied: Mischaracterization of a weapon was improper but harmless; inflammatory remark permissible rebuttal; reasonable-doubt comments not analogous to disapproved crosswalk analogy and not reversible |
| Additional grounds: sufficiency of evidence re: victim's representational interest and Brady claim for withheld items | State: Guard was a loss-prevention employee with demonstrated connection to property; no evidence of suppression | Gatson: State failed to prove guard had possessory/representative interest; withholding of guard's clothing/equipment violated Brady | Denied: Uncontroverted evidence established guard's representative interest (omission harmless); record shows no Brady suppression warranting relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Henderson v. State, 182 Wn.2d 734 (2015) (standard for lesser-included instruction factual prong review)
- Decker v. State, 127 Wn. App. 427 (2005) (defendant inflicts injury when conduct is actual and proximate cause; direct causal link supports liability)
- Bauer v. State, 180 Wn.2d 929 (2014) (legal causation in criminal cases narrower when negligent acts cannot directly cause injury)
- Richie v. State, 191 Wn. App. 916 (2015) (robbery requires victim to have ownership, possessory, or representative interest in property)
- Brown v. State, 147 Wn.2d 330 (2002) (omission of an essential element in instruction is harmless when uncontroverted evidence supports it)
- Lindsay v. State, 180 Wn.2d 423 (2014) (prosecutorial misconduct requires showing of improper and prejudicial conduct)
- Woods v. State, 143 Wn.2d 561 (2001) (jury instruction that accurately states the law is not an impermissible comment on the evidence)