State Of Washington v. Douglas Mackey, 49198-2

Background

In March 2015 Mackey assaulted his girlfriend Mallory Anderson multiple times at his Vancouver residence (pinned to the garage floor and pressed thumbs into her eyes; later held her up by the neck against a hallway wall; other assaults and threats). Anderson and their child were brought from Oregon and had no transportation.
Anderson repeatedly asked to be taken home; Mackey refused, threatened to kill her, and she left with her father the next day with visible injuries.
Mackey was arrested in May 2015; while secured in a patrol car and before receiving Miranda warnings he blurted, “That was months ago!” The trial court held a CrR 3.5 hearing and admitted the statement as voluntary and spontaneous.
Charges: second degree assault (reckless substantial bodily harm), second degree assault by strangulation (Count 2), unlawful imprisonment, and felony harassment. The jury convicted Mackey of second degree assault (Count 1), fourth degree assault (as lesser included of Count 2), unlawful imprisonment, and felony harassment; special verdicts found aggravated domestic violence.
On appeal Mackey raised four principal claims: (1) pre-Miranda statement inadmissible, (2) Sixth/State constitutional unanimity violation due to no Petrich instruction/election on the fourth degree assault, (3) double jeopardy between second and fourth degree assault convictions, and (4) insufficient evidence of unlawful imprisonment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Mackey)	Held
Admissibility of pre-Miranda statement	Statement was spontaneous; officer merely told Mackey the arrest concerned a March incident, which did not elicit the response	The statement was the product of a custodial interrogation and required Miranda warnings	Admissible: trial court findings (unchallenged) show no interrogation or questioning; statement voluntary and spontaneous, so Miranda not required
Petrich unanimity instruction for fourth degree assault	State argues Mackey waived the issue by not objecting at trial	Multiple distinct acts could support the lesser-offense verdict; absent election or Petrich instruction, jury unanimity violated	Waived/no manifest error: State clearly elected the “wall” incident for Count 2 during closing, so no Petrich instruction required and verdicts reflect unanimity
Double jeopardy between 2nd and 4th degree assault	Different acts constituted separate courses of conduct; multiple convictions permitted	Convictions may punish same offense twice because both are assault convictions arising from same overall conduct	No double jeopardy: unit-of-prosecution test supports separate courses (different days, locations, intervening events, apologies) so multiple convictions permissible
Sufficiency of evidence for unlawful imprisonment	Evidence showed knowing restraint by intimidation (assaults, refusal to let Anderson leave, threats), and escape was unreasonable	No substantial restraint proved because Anderson could have left the residence	Sufficient: rational trier of fact could find substantial restraint by intimidation; means of escape were not reasonable and presented more than a mere inconvenience

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (custodial interrogation requires Miranda warnings)
State v. Russell, 180 Wn.2d 860 (appellate review standard for CrR 3.5 suppression rulings)
State v. Heritage, 152 Wn.2d 210 (Miranda elements and presumption when warnings not given)
State v. Bobenhouse, 166 Wn.2d 881 (Petrich instruction/election required when multiple acts could support a single count)
State v. Villanueva-Gonzalez, 180 Wn.2d 975 (unit-of-prosecution test for multiple assaultive acts)
State v. Freeman, 153 Wn.2d 765 (double jeopardy standard/review)
State v. Rich, 184 Wn.2d 897 (standard for sufficiency-of-the-evidence review)