State of Washington v. Dennis Wayne Jussila
197 Wash. App. 908
Wash. Ct. App.2017Background
- Dennis Jussila was tried for first‑degree burglary, multiple counts of theft of firearms, multiple counts of unlawful possession of firearms (first degree), second‑degree theft (laptop + coins), and manufacturing marijuana arising from a March 21, 2014 burglary of his neighbor’s home.
- Victim Craven testified seven rifles and other items (a .45, .357, a gold watch, a knife sharpener, and a bag of coins) were missing; photographs of some guns were admitted but did not show make/model/serial numbers and Craven often did not identify make/model/serial numbers in testimony.
- The trial court’s "to convict" jury instructions for the firearm theft and unlawful possession counts listed each gun with make, model, and serial number as part of the elements the jury had to find; the State presented no evidence proving the serial numbers and very limited evidence of makes/models.
- Jury convicted Jussila of first‑degree burglary, second‑degree theft, five counts each of firearm theft and unlawful possession, and manufacture of marijuana; two firearm possession counts were acquitted and two theft counts hung.
- On appeal the central legal dispute concerned whether the inclusion of identifying firearm data in the to‑convict instructions effectively added elements the State was required to prove, and whether Washington precedent (State v. Hickman) requiring proof of instruction‑added elements remains controlling in light of Musacchio v. United States.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Jussila) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether listing make/model/serial numbers in the to‑convict instructions made those facts elements the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt | The listed information was descriptive to distinguish multiple firearms/counts and did not become independent elements that the State had to prove | The inclusion of make/model/serial numbers in the to‑convict instructions added elements which the State failed to prove (no serial number evidence) | Court reversed the five convictions for theft of a firearm and five for unlawful possession of a firearm because the instructions made serial numbers elements and the State offered no proof of them |
| Whether Hickman (law of the case: unobjected‑to instructions become law of the case and added elements must be proved) remains good law after Musacchio | Musacchio and Division One’s Tyler undermine Hickman; sufficiency review should ignore erroneous added elements and measure proof against statutory elements only | Hickman remains binding under Washington law; Musacchio does not control state common‑law rule and only sets a federal floor—abrogation must come from the WA Supreme Court | Court declined to overrule Hickman and applied it: instructions added elements, so Hickman requires reversal where added elements lack proof |
| Sufficiency of evidence that stolen items qualified as "firearms" for burglary deadly‑weapon prong | N/A (State argued evidence of real, loaded guns sufficed) | Jussila argued limited testimony/photos were insufficient to prove the objects were operable firearms | Court held evidence was sufficient to support burglary first‑degree (testimony of recovered rifles in cases, references to loaded guns, and police recovery supported inference they were firearms) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for second‑degree theft (value > $750) | N/A (State relied on combined value of items) | Jussila argued State failed to prove market value exceeded $750; victim gave values only for some items (sharpener $50; coins $250–$300) and no value for laptop or watch | Court reversed second‑degree theft conviction for insufficient evidence of value (State’s proof did not establish > $750) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hickman, 135 Wn.2d 97 (1998) (unobjected‑to jury instructions become law of the case and added elements in instructions must be proven; conviction reversed where State presented no evidence of added venue element)
- Musacchio v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 709 (2016) (when an instruction adds an erroneous element, sufficiency review should assess proof against the statutory elements of the offense, not the erroneous added element)
- State v. Munoz‑Rivera, 190 Wn. App. 870 (2015) (date‑of‑birth in parentheses used only to identify victim and not treated as added element under law of the case reasoning)
- State v. Tyler, 195 Wn. App. 385 (2016) (Division One held Musacchio abrogates application of law‑of‑the‑case to added instruction elements; sufficiency review limited to statutory elements)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (federal due process sufficiency standard: whether any rational trier of fact could find essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt)
- State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216 (1980) (Washington’s adoption of Jackson sufficiency test)