State Of Washington v. Donna Elizabeth Green
73954-9
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jun 19, 2017Background
- Donna Green used her deceased mother's SSA benefits that continued to be deposited into an authorized signer Bank of America account after the mother’s death.
- Donna Mae Green died May 13, 2012; SSA did not appoint a representative payee and did not notify SSA of the death, so deposits continued.
- Green, the daughter, issued about 24 checks to herself from the mother's account between May 2012 and January 2014, signing as 'Donna Green' and cashing through Bank of America.
- SSA later learned of the death via the SSA death match alert and sought to recover funds; remaining balance was about $2,000.
- Green admitted using the money for her own expenses and to pay bills; the State charged her with one count of theft by deception and five counts of forgery; trial court instructed on theft and forgery, but refused proposed good faith title instruction and supplemental knowledge instruction.
- Green sought substitution of counsel; defense challenged prosecutorial misconduct in rebuttal, which the trial court denied; Green was convicted as charged and sentenced as a first-time offender.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Good faith claim of title defense instruction | Green argues RCW 9A.56.020(2)(a) requires an instruction on good faith title. | State contends Stanton and Casey foreclose such instruction for theft by deception. | Instruction not required; good faith title defense inapplicable to theft by deception. |
| Supplemental knowledge instruction | Green sought a knowledge instruction requiring actual knowledge. | State used WPIC 10.02 and contends no extra instruction needed. | Court did not err; WPIC 10.02 properly instructed knowledge. |
| Substitution of counsel | Green contends she should have new counsel due to disputes. | State argues no irreconcilable conflict or breakdown in communication. | Court did not abuse discretion in denying substitution. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in rebuttal | Green claims rebuttal comments shifted burden and inflamed prejudice. | State argues remarks were proper fair response to defense closing. | No prosecutorial misconduct; arguments were fair responses. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Walker, 136 Wn.2d 767 (1998) (de novo review for jury instruction rulings)
- State v. Sullivan, 196 Wn. App. 277 (2016) (analysis of good faith title defense vs theft by deception)
- State v. Stanton, 68 Wn. App. 855 (1993) (good faith title defense not required for theft by deception)
- State v. Casey, 81 Wn. App. 524 (1996) (reaffirmed Stanton on good faith title defense)
- State v. Ager, 128 Wn.2d 85 (1995) (theft statute definitions in RCW 9A.56.020)
- State v. Acosta, 101 Wn.2d 612 (1984) (emphasized applicability of defense concepts)
- State v. McCullum, 98 Wn.2d 484 (1983) (murder; relevant to interpretation of defenses)
- State v. Hanton, 94 Wn.2d 129 (1980) (manslaughter; defense instruction context)
- State v. Leech, 114 Wn.2d 700 (1990) (approval of WPIC 10.02 on knowledge)
- State v. Allen, 182 Wn.2d 364 (2015) (knowledge instruction in culpability context; Allen cited for misuse risk)
- State v. Shipp, 93 Wn.2d 510 (1980) (should have known concept cited by Allen)
- State v. Varga, 151 Wn.2d 179 (2004) (discretion in substitution of counsel; good cause standard)
- State v. Stenson, 132 Wn.2d 668 (1997) (substitution of counsel standard; irreconcilable conflict)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Glasmann, 175 Wn.2d 696 (2012) (propriety of rebuttal constraints)