State Of Washington, V. Dawn Renee Rolfe, 83432-1

Background

Dawn Rolfe expressed plans to kill her husband Richard, his mother, and his girlfriend; a friend/co‑worker (Brenda Mortensen) reported Rolfe and aided police by recording meetings and arranging delivery of an untraceable gun.
Police recorded Rolfe’s interview with Detective Lorenzo Gladson; recordings of Mortensen’s conversations with Rolfe were also played at trial.
Rolfe was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm, three counts of attempted first‑degree murder (with firearm enhancements), and three alternative counts of conspiracy to commit first‑degree murder (with firearm enhancements).
The jury acquitted on attempted murder counts, convicted on the three conspiracy counts and unlawful possession; the trial court imposed a 398.25‑month standard range sentence including firearm enhancements.
On appeal the State conceded, and the court held, that the three conspiracy convictions violated double jeopardy (unit of prosecution is the agreement/overt act), vacating two conspiracy convictions and remanding for resentencing.
Rolfe also challenged (1) admission of Detective Gladson’s recorded interrogation statements as improper opinion testimony, (2) ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to object, and (3) denial of a mistrial for a witness’s offhand reference to “a case”; the court rejected these claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Multiple conspiracy convictions — double jeopardy	Rolfe: multiple convictions for conspiracy to commit murder constitute multiple punishments for the same offense	State: disputed but conceded on appeal that only one conspiracy conviction is supported	Court: Concession accepted; vacated two conspiracy convictions and remanded for resentencing (unit of prosecution is single agreement/overt act)
Admission of Detective Gladson’s recorded statements (opinion on guilt/intent)	Rolfe: statements in her recorded interview impermissibly expressed officer’s opinion on her guilt/intent, violating jury trial right	State: statements were interrogation tactics and admissible as part of the recorded interrogation	Court: Recording not improper opinion testimony; statements were interrogation tactics shown to jury; claim waived for lack of trial objection and not a manifest constitutional error
Ineffective assistance for failing to object to the recorded statements	Rolfe: counsel’s failure to object was deficient and prejudiced the defense	State: overwhelming other evidence (Mortensen’s recordings/testimony etc.) meant no prejudice from admission	Court: No prejudice shown; ineffective‑assistance claim fails given strength of admissible evidence
Motion for mistrial over witness’s reference to “a case”	Rolfe: comment violated motion in limine excluding prior arrest/domestic violence references and was incurable prejudice	State: statement was vague, non‑specific, not repeated; curative instruction offered	Court: No abuse of discretion denying mistrial; comment was general, not substantially prejudicial, and defendant declined curative instruction

Key Cases Cited

State v. Bobic, 140 Wn.2d 250 (2000) (unit of prosecution for conspiracy is the agreement and overt act, not each target offense)
State v. Linton, 156 Wn.2d 777 (2006) (double jeopardy protects against multiple punishments for same offense)
State v. Hughes, 166 Wn.2d 675 (2009) (double jeopardy questions reviewed de novo)
State v. Montgomery, 163 Wn.2d 577 (2008) (witness statements expressing belief as to guilt or intent are improper opinion testimony)
City of Seattle v. Heatley, 70 Wn. App. 573 (1993) (general rule prohibiting witnesses from opining on defendant’s guilt)
State v. Curtiss, 161 Wn. App. 673 (2011) (statements made during interrogation may be admissible and not treated as officer’s personal opinion)
State v. Notaro, 161 Wn. App. 654 (2011) (similar holding regarding interrogation statements)
State v. Smiley, 195 Wn. App. 185 (2016) (same principle for recorded interrogations)
State v. Emery, 174 Wn.2d 741 (2012) (standards for ineffective assistance review)
In re Pers. Restraint of Davis, 152 Wn.2d 647 (2004) (requirements when ineffective assistance claim is based on failure to object)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (performance and prejudice test for ineffective assistance)
State v. Hendrickson, 129 Wn.2d 61 (1996) (prejudice standard: reasonable probability of different outcome)
State v. Rodriguez, 146 Wn.2d 260 (2002) (standards for granting mistrial; substantial likelihood of affecting the verdict required)
State v. Escalona, 49 Wn. App. 251 (1987) (factors for evaluating trial irregularities and mistrial requests)
State v. Russell, 125 Wn.2d 24 (1994) (standard for overturning denial of mistrial)