State Of Washington v. Ira Lamar Blackstock, Jr.
74156-0
| Wash. Ct. App. | Apr 24, 2017Background
- In October 2013, Ira Blackstock Jr. lost control of his vehicle; two occupants of the other car died and a third suffered serious injuries. Blackstock was not intoxicated.
- The State charged Blackstock with two counts of vehicular homicide and one count of vehicular assault.
- The trial court instructed the jury using the Washington Pattern Instruction (WPIC) defining "reckless" and "disregard for the safety of others." The instruction was slightly modified to apply to both vehicular homicide and vehicular assault.
- Defense counsel did not propose any alternative instruction on the degree of fault required for "disregard for the safety of others."
- The jury convicted on all counts but found Blackstock was not operating the vehicle recklessly. Blackstock appealed, claiming ineffective assistance based on counsel’s failure to request a different instruction.
- The trial court had previously found Blackstock indigent for appeal; he asked that no appellate costs be imposed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Blackstock) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not requesting an instruction clarifying that "disregard for the safety of others" requires criminal negligence | Counsel should have requested an instruction making clear the jury must find a failure to be aware of a substantial risk (i.e., criminal negligence) | The WPIC given accurately stated the law; counsel was not deficient for relying on a correct, current pattern instruction | Counsel was not deficient; trial counsel cannot be faulted for not challenging a correct WPIC instruction |
| Whether the WPIC instruction misstates the law regarding "disregard for the safety of others" | WPIC is insufficiently explicit about criminal negligence element | No Washington decision rejects the WPIC; it is a correct statement of law | WPIC is a correct statement of law; appellant did not identify controlling authority rejecting it |
| Whether prejudicial effect of any deficient performance must be addressed | Blackstock implied prejudice from instruction failure | Court need not reach prejudice because performance was not deficient | Court did not reach prejudice prong after finding no deficiency |
| Whether appellate costs should be awarded | Blackstock requested no costs be awarded | State may seek costs if Blackstock's financial circumstances improved since indigency finding | Trial court's indigency finding stands absent evidence of changed finances; State may move to recover costs if it shows changed circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (constitutional standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Studd, 137 Wn.2d 533 (trial counsel not at fault for using then-unquestioned pattern instruction)
- State v. Kyllo, 166 Wn.2d 856 (counsel deficient when using instruction known to be erroneous at time of trial)
- State v. Sutherby, 165 Wn.2d 870 (ineffective assistance review standard; de novo review)
- State v. Eike, 72 Wn.2d 760 (earlier discussion of meaning of "disregard for the safety of others")