State of Washington v. Fred Karben, 37862-4

Fred and Kaikapu Karben separated after a history of domestic violence; they share two minor daughters. Fred also has an adult daughter, Chrismila.
On January 18, 2020, heated phone calls among Fred, Kaikapu, Chrismila, and a minor escalated; Fred allegedly threatened to kill Kaikapu, family members, and himself.
Kaikapu reported the threats, stayed in a hotel with the children, and testified she feared Fred based on past violence. Defense witnesses downplayed ongoing fear.
Fred was charged with domestic violence felony harassment (RCW 9A.46.020(2)(b)), tried, and testified he did not threaten others and that comments about shooting himself were expressions of frustration.
During deliberations the jury asked whether the phrase “any other person” included the defendant; the court referred the jury back to the instructions rather than answering “no.” The jury convicted.
At sentencing the court imposed a $100 domestic violence assessment and a $200 criminal filing fee; Fred appealed challenging the jury instructions (and related free-speech argument) and the LFOs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether jury instructions allowed conviction based on a threat of self-harm	Instruction 7 correctly tracked statute; State focused the case on threats to Kaikapu/children, not self-harm	Instruction language and jury question could be read to permit conviction for self-harm; statements of self-harm are protected speech	Instruction 6 made clear target must be "another person;" no reversible error; even if unclear, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; court did not abuse discretion in declining further clarification; court declined to decide free-speech question
Whether imposition of LFOs (domestic violence assessment and criminal filing fee) violated indigence rules	Domestic violence assessment is discretionary and victim-focused; filing fee is mandatory unless defendant meets statutory indigence definition	Fred argued he was indigent under RCW 10.101.010(3) given child-support burden, so fees should be waived	Domestic violence fee may be imposed despite defendant's claimed indigence (statute focuses on victim); filing fee properly imposed because Fred did not meet statutory indigence (no qualifying public assistance, involuntary commitment, nor income ≤125% FPL); child support not deducted for indigence determination

State v. Teaford, 31 Wn. App. 496, 644 P.2d 136 (1982) (jury instructions must be read as a whole and jurors are presumed to follow them)
State v. Gerdts, 136 Wn. App. 720, 150 P.3d 627 (2007) (review instructions de novo and consider challenged language in context)
State v. Ng, 110 Wn.2d 32, 750 P.2d 632 (1988) (trial court has discretion whether to give supplemental instructions after deliberations begin; jury questions do not establish confusion requiring reversal)
State v. Miller, 40 Wn. App. 483, 698 P.2d 1123 (1985) (jury questions are not final determinations; verdict controls)
State v. Guloy, 104 Wn.2d 412, 705 P.2d 1182 (1985) (constitutional instructional errors are subject to harmless-error review)
State v. Smith, 9 Wn. App. 2d 122, 442 P.3d 265 (2019) (RCW 10.99.080 domestic violence assessment focuses on victim’s needs and may be imposed notwithstanding defendant’s financial hardship)