State of Washington v. Eric Allen Haggin
33280-2
| Wash. Ct. App. | Aug 2, 2016Background
- In August 2014 police executed warrants at Eric Haggin’s apartment after laundromat surveillance identified him as the person who stole clothes; officers found two firearms, substantial quantities of methamphetamine and heroin, scales, baggies, and ledgers.
- The State charged Haggin (and co-defendant Asenet Diaz) with multiple felonies; the jury convicted Haggin of two counts of first-degree unlawful possession of a firearm, two counts of possession with intent to deliver (methamphetamine and heroin), two counts of use of drug paraphernalia, second-degree theft, and witness tampering; acquitted on possession of a stolen firearm.
- The trial court sentenced Haggin to 101 months on each unlawful possession count and ordered those two sentences to run consecutively; other sentences ran concurrently; deadly-weapon enhancements added consecutive time; community custody imposed.
- On appeal Haggin raised six arguments; the published portion of the opinion addresses whether RCW 9.94A.589(1)(c) required consecutive sentences for multiple unlawful-possession convictions absent a conviction for firearm theft or possession of a stolen firearm.
- The Court of Appeals held the statute’s second sentence must be read in tandem with the first: consecutive sentences under RCW 9.94A.589(1)(c) apply only when unlawful possession convictions are accompanied by convictions for theft of a firearm or possession of a stolen firearm; because Haggin was acquitted of possession of a stolen firearm, his two unlawful-possession sentences should have been run concurrently and the case was remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Haggin) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RCW 9.94A.589(1)(c) mandates consecutive sentences for multiple convictions of unlawful possession of a firearm even absent firearm-theft or possession-of-stolen-firearm convictions | The statute’s second sentence operates independently, requiring consecutive sentences for each unlawful-possession conviction and for each firearm unlawfully possessed | The second sentence must be read together with the first; consecutive sentences apply only when unlawful possession convictions accompany convictions for theft of a firearm or possession of a stolen firearm; otherwise RCW 9.94A.589(1)(a) requires concurrent sentences | Court held the sentences must be read together; consecutive sentences do not apply absent firearm theft or possession-of-stolen-firearm convictions; remanded for resentencing (concurrent sentences) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for witness tampering conviction | Recording and content of jail call supported an attempt to induce witness (offer to compensate to ‘drop charges’) | Haggin argued he never contacted the witness and was only offering to pay for lost clothes, not to bribe or induce withholding testimony | Court affirmed sufficiency: attempted inducement established; conviction upheld |
| Admissibility / manifest error from officer opinion testimony (drugs, money) | Officer’s testimony about quantities and money was admissible background based on experience and not tantamount to an explicit opinion of guilt | Haggin argued the testimony improperly invaded the jury’s province and constituted an opinion on guilt | Court held the testimony was not an explicit or almost-explicit opinion on guilt and did not constitute manifest constitutional error |
| Jury instruction for deadly-weapon enhancement and failure to define "accomplice" | WPIC 2.07.02 (including bracketed accomplice language) properly states law; accompanist definition unnecessary where elements were given | Haggin argued instruction relieved State of burden by deeming accomplices armed without defining accomplice, causing jury confusion | Court held no constitutional error; failure to define accomplice was not of constitutional magnitude and declined review |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Murphy, 98 Wn. App. 42, 988 P.2d 1018 (Ct. App. Wash.) (interpreting RCW 9.41.040(6) and related sentencing provisions and discussing consecutive sentencing for firearm offenses)
- State v. Montgomery, 163 Wn.2d 577, 183 P.3d 267 (Wash. 2008) (police opinion testimony crossing into an improper assertion of defendant’s guilt)
- State v. Rempel, 114 Wn.2d 77, 785 P.2d 1134 (Wash. 1990) (analyzing when words and context can constitute attempt to induce a witness to drop charges)
- State v. Kirkman, 159 Wn.2d 918, 155 P.3d 125 (Wash. 2007) (standard for manifest constitutional error from unobjected-to opinion testimony)
- State v. Haddock, 141 Wn.2d 103, 3 P.3d 733 (Wash. 2000) (discussing legislative changes and amendments to statutes governing firearms-related sentencing)