State of Washington v. Don Arthur Moore
32925-9
| Wash. Ct. App. | Dec 15, 2016Background
- Don Moore was convicted of first-degree murder for killing Bruce Molony; physical evidence and witness statements suggested Moore shot Molony from a distance, then stabbed the body and staged wounds to support a self-defense claim.
- At trial Moore testified he acted in self-defense after Molony attacked with a rock or knife; his statements to others about intending to kill Molony and recorded jail calls undermined that narrative.
- During voir dire a potential juror said he opposed the death penalty; the prosecutor stated the case was not capital (Moore did not object).
- Jury selection strikes and excusals were recorded on a four-page seating chart that was not scanned into the clerk’s electronic file and was misplaced for over a year; it was later found in the clerk’s office.
- The court gave both a self-defense instruction (requested by Moore) and a first- aggressor instruction (requested by the State); Moore did not object at trial to the first-aggressor or to the lack of a manslaughter instruction.
- The jury returned "yes" verdicts on both a deadly-weapon (knife) and firearm enhancement; the trial court imposed both enhancements and sentenced accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Moore's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public-trial violation from seating chart not being readily available | Moore: misplaced seating chart made written peremptory-challenge record unavailable to public, violating public-trial right | State: chart not required to have docket number; public could observe voir dire and could obtain chart from clerk | No violation; temporary misplacement did not close proceedings where selection was public and chart was obtainable |
| First-aggressor jury instruction | Moore: instruction relieved State of burden to disprove self-defense; not supported by evidence | State: evidence (threats, distance shooting, planting of knife) supported instruction | Instruction properly given; viewing evidence for proponent, instruction appropriate; not manifest constitutional error |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (voir dire comment, manslaughter instr., prior-bad-act evidence) | Moore: counsel erred by not objecting to prosecutor’s noncapital remark, not requesting manslaughter instruction, not objecting to prior-bad-act rebuttal | State: any failures either were not prejudicial or were proper tactical choices; prior-bad-act was permissible rebuttal; manslaughter not supported by evidence | Counsel deficient re: noncapital remark but no prejudice; no ineffective assistance on manslaughter or prior-bad-act claims |
| Sentencing enhancements (firearm vs. deadly weapon) | Moore: jury returned two deadly-weapon special verdicts but court imposed both deadly-weapon and firearm enhancements, so firearm enhancement should be vacated | State: special verdict form separately asked about deadly weapon (knife) and firearm and jury answered yes to both; sentencing matched jury findings | No error; trial court properly imposed both enhancements consistent with jury’s separate yes findings |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Love, 183 Wn.2d 598 (2015) (public may observe voir dire and written peremptory challenge sheets must be filed to satisfy public-trial right)
- State v. Lormor, 172 Wn.2d 85 (2011) (Washington Constitution’s open administration of justice principle)
- State v. Easterling, 157 Wn.2d 167 (2006) (public-trial violation review is de novo)
- State v. Townsend, 142 Wn.2d 838 (2001) (voir dire references to sentencing in noncapital cases should be objected to; failure may be deficient but requires prejudice analysis)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322 (1995) (articulation of deficient performance and prejudice test for ineffective assistance)