State of Washington v. Gustavo Rodriguez Tapia
37522-6
Wash. Ct. App.Feb 8, 2022Background
- Victim Arturo Sosa and Eustolia Campuzano had recently broken up; Campuzano enlisted others to “scare” Sosa.
- Gustavo Tapia Rodriguez (had a .45 handgun) and others confronted Sosa and José Cano Barrientos at gunpoint, forced them into Cano Barrientos’s SUV, and drove on the highway.
- During a struggle in the SUV, Albarran Varona shot Cano Barrientos (who survived); Tapia Rodriguez shot and killed Sosa.
- Tapia Rodriguez was tried with co-defendant Gutierrez, convicted of aggravated first-degree murder (with aggravators), first-degree kidnapping, and first-degree assault; sentenced to life without parole plus additional terms.
- On appeal Tapia Rodriguez challenged (inter alia) sufficiency of evidence for premeditation, ineffective assistance for failing to remove a biased juror, sentencing (same criminal conduct/merger), and prosecutorial misconduct.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed convictions, rejected the challenges, but remanded for the trial court to reapply the appropriate same-criminal-conduct test (Dunaway test per Westwood) and to correct a scrivener’s error in the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Tapia Rodriguez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for premeditated aggravated murder | Evidence supported that Tapia formed intent before/when victims were forced to kneel and later killed Sosa; premeditation can be brief | Insufficient proof of premeditation; aggravated murder not established | Affirmed: reasonable inferences and testimony support premeditation; conviction stands |
| Ineffective assistance for not striking venire juror 16 | Defense strategically left juror 16 (to argue immigration issues and Tapia's citizenship); no deficient performance | Counsel should have challenged juror 16 who admitted bias against non‑citizens; prejudice follows | Rejected: counsel’s conduct was a plausible strategic decision; no ineffective assistance |
| Same criminal conduct / sentencing (kidnapping vs assault) | Offenses are distinct under statutory element analysis (Chenoweth); trial court applied that test and scored separately | Crimes should be same criminal conduct under Dunaway objective intent test; would run concurrently | Remanded: trial court applied Chenoweth but must reassess under Dunaway (per Westwood); if same, score and concurrency change |
| Merger / double jeopardy (aggravating kidnapping & murder) | Aggravator (kidnapping) properly elevates murder; no separate punishment imposed for kidnapping of murder victim | Aggravated murder (premeditated) merged with felony-murder/kidnapping alternative, barring separate punishment | Rejected: no double jeopardy or improper multiple punishments; aggravated murder sentence stands |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (closing argument) | Prosecutor’s inferences were supported by evidence elicited at trial; argument about witness fear derived from defense-elicited testimony | Prosecutor vouched, misstated facts/law, and argued facts outside evidence | Rejected: statements were reasonable inferences or based on testimony; any isolated misstatements did not create prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Chenoweth, 185 Wn.2d 218 (2016) (applies statutory mens rea comparison in assessing whether two offenses are the same criminal conduct in certain contexts)
- State v. Dunaway, 109 Wn.2d 207 (1987) (same criminal conduct test focuses on whether the defendant’s objective criminal intent changed between offenses)
- State v. Arndt, 194 Wn.2d 784 (2019) (double jeopardy/merger principles: separate punishments allowed for different offenses; legislature may punish greater offense that subsumes lesser conduct)
- State v. Irizarry, 111 Wn.2d 591 (1988) (aggravated murder requires proof of premeditation)
- State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322 (1995) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficiency and prejudice)