State of Washington v. Joel Matthew Groves
32961-5
| Wash. Ct. App. | Feb 23, 2017Background
- On July 8, 2014, Groves drove Zach Koback and Jordan Hanson to DaQwon “Dizzy” Kessay’s apartment after a Facebook dispute; a shot was fired into the apartment and a bullet fragment was recovered beneath the oven.
- Multiple eyewitnesses placed an older bald, heavily tattooed man with a black revolver in or near the Mitsubishi; Koback and others later observed Groves in possession of a revolver in the car after the shooting.
- Police recovered a Ruger single-action revolver from trash at Groves’s mother’s house and spent casings and live ammunition tied to Groves’s residence; DNA testing matched Groves to a major profile on the revolver’s hammer and ballistics linked the revolver to the fragment from the apartment.
- Groves gave a recorded statement at the jail; he admitted driving the men to the apartment and that Koback returned with a revolver. The statement was admitted after a suppression hearing.
- Groves was convicted by a jury of first-degree assault, drive-by shooting, felony harassment, and first-degree unlawful possession of a firearm; special verdicts found he was armed with a firearm for several counts. Sentencing included multiple firearm enhancements.
- On appeal the court affirmed most convictions, reversed the felony harassment conviction for insufficient evidence, accepted the State’s concession to strike the firearm enhancement on the drive-by count, and remanded for resentencing on that basis.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Groves's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that Groves was the shooter (assault & drive-by) | Circumstantial and forensic evidence (eyewitnesses seeing Groves with revolver, DNA on hammer, ballistics linking revolver to scene) support conviction | No witness saw Groves fire the gun; identification and causation insufficient | Affirmed: evidence sufficient for first-degree assault and drive-by shooting convictions |
| Sufficiency of evidence for felony harassment (threat to kill Kessay) | Threats were made verbally by Groves and his pointing/brandishing could be a threat; special verdict found he was armed | Kessay did not hear verbal threats; brief glimpse of barrel/arm was not a communicated threat and thus insufficient to place Kessay in reasonable fear | Reversed: harassment conviction vacated and dismissed with prejudice for insufficient evidence |
| Lawfulness of firearm enhancement on drive-by shooting sentence | State conceded enhancement was improperly applied because statute excludes drive-by shooting from firearm enhancements | Enhancement violated RCW 9.94A.533(3)(f) | Accepted concession: strike the firearm enhancement and remand for resentencing consistent with exclusion |
| Brady / discovery and suppression of DNA/ballistics evidence; trial timing | State acted diligently; DNA/ballistics were generated by the crime lab and produced promptly; no suppression or Brady violation shown | Late disclosure and CODIS-search information withheld, violating discovery and Brady and prejudicing Groves (speedy trial / need for independent testing) | Denied: court found no suppression or lack of diligence; trial continuance within cure period appropriate and exclusionary sanctions unwarranted |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192 (State sufficiency review standard)
- State v. Goodman, 150 Wn.2d 774 (circumstantial evidence equals direct evidence in sufficiency claims)
- State v. Kiehl, 128 Wn. App. 88 (harassment requires that the threatened person learn of and reasonably fear the threat)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecutor's duty to disclose favorable evidence)
- State v. Buckner, 133 Wn.2d 63 (DNA statistical testimony and admissibility considerations)