State of Washington v. Denny Albert Dare
34231-0
| Wash. Ct. App. | Sep 19, 2017Background
- On Sept. 13, 2014 Denny Dare went to Denise Johnson’s apartment demanding repayment of a $90 loan; he pushed open the screen door and entered while shouting.
- Inside he threw clothes, threatened to kill Johnson and her cat, and (according to Johnson) pushed her against a wall; a neighbor and a responding officer testified.
- Johnson testified she took the threats seriously; Dare admitted saying he “ought to” strangle her and the cat and admitted throwing clothes but denied pushing or threatening on leaving.
- Dare was charged with residential burglary, felony harassment (threats to kill), and fourth-degree assault.
- The jury convicted Dare of residential burglary but acquitted him of felony harassment and fourth-degree assault.
- Dare appealed, arguing insufficient evidence that he entered with intent to commit a crime because of the acquittals on the other counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove Dare entered the dwelling with intent to commit a crime (element of residential burglary) | State: circumstantial evidence (entry plus threats, intimidation, conduct) supports an inference of intent to threaten/intimidate; intent need not be for a specific crime | Dare: jury acquittals on harassment and assault show insufficient evidence of intent to commit a crime upon entry | Affirmed — evidence sufficient; RCW inference allows intent to be inferred from unlawful entry plus surrounding facts, and acquittals do not negate sufficiency here |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Washington, 135 Wn. App. 42 (2006) (due process requires proof of all elements beyond a reasonable doubt)
- State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192 (1992) (review standard for sufficiency: view evidence in light most favorable to State)
- State v. Cordero, 170 Wn. App. 351 (2012) (statutory inference of intent after unlawful entry must be supported by a more‑likely‑than‑not inference consistent with due process)
- State v. Bergeron, 105 Wn.2d 1 (1985) (State need not prove intent to commit a specific crime for burglary)
- State v. Groins, 151 Wn.2d 728 (2004) (inconsistent jury verdicts can occur and do not automatically invalidate a conviction)
- Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390 (1932) (juries sometimes return inconsistent verdicts for reasons such as mistake or compromise)