327 P.3d 1276
Wash. Ct. App.2014Background
- At night in Tukwila, John Harris (driving on a suspended license) struck pedestrian Clashana Grayson as she crossed mid-block; he stopped, saw her motionless, then left the scene. A second, unidentified vehicle later ran over Grayson; she died at the hospital.
- Harris was charged with felony hit-and-run and driving with a suspended license; jury convicted on both; special verdict found Harris was involved in an accident resulting in death. He received 87 months' imprisonment.
- The State sought restitution of $8,655.22 (burial expenses) as part of the sentence for driving with a suspended license; restitution was not sought on the hit-and-run conviction.
- Harris appealed the restitution order, arguing (1) the statute does not authorize restitution for driving with a suspended license, (2) the State failed to prove causation between that crime and the burial expenses, and (3) the trial court erred in denying his request for substitute counsel; he also raised an Irby-related jury-selection concern.
- The Court of Appeals examined statutory authority for restitution (RCW 9A.20.030(1)), the applicable causation standard ("but for" under Washington law), and trial-court handling of counsel substitution and an in-chambers voir dire conference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RCW 9A.20.030(1) authorizes restitution for burial expenses tied to driving with a suspended license | State: statute permits restitution where defendant "caused a victim to lose money" through the commission of a crime; burial expenses are a monetary loss traceable to the crime | Harris: driving with a suspended license is not an offense that by its nature causes money loss; decedent (not relatives) is the victim | Court: Authorized. "Victim" can include decedent's relatives who incurred burial expenses; restitution statute applies when defendant caused victim loss via a crime |
| Whether the State proved causation between the crime (driving with suspended license) and burial expenses | State: proved by preponderance that, "but for" Harris driving illegally, the collision and resulting burial expenses would not have occurred | Harris: license suspension was a circumstance, not the cause; relies on cases requiring more than "but for" causation | Court: "But for" causation is sufficient in Washington; State met its burden; restitution sustained |
| Whether Hartwell requires vacating restitution because injuries preceded the offense of conviction | Harris: analogizes to Hartwell where injury preceded hit-and-run offense so restitution improper | State: here the crime supporting restitution was driving while suspended (the act of driving), not leaving the scene; that act was the but-for cause | Court: Hartwell distinguishable; driving illegally placed Harris behind wheel and caused the loss; restitution proper |
| Whether trial court erred by denying motion for substitute counsel and by an in-chambers jury discussion | Harris: alleged inability to communicate with public defender; later claimed court met in chambers about voir dire without him | State/Trial court: single, unelaborated request months before trial insufficient; chambers discussion produced no decisions and voir dire was restarted when issue raised | Court: Denial of new counsel not an abuse (no adequate showing or timely, specific breakdown); chambers conference handled properly and did not create Irby error |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thomas, 138 Wn. App. 78 (restitution standard and abuse-of-discretion review)
- State v. Griffith, 164 Wn.2d 960 (examine facts of charged offense for causation)
- State v. Tobin, 161 Wn.2d 517 ("but for" causation sufficient for restitution)
- State v. Enstone, 137 Wn.2d 675 (loss need not be foreseeable)
- State v. Hartwell, 38 Wn. App. 135 (distinguishable precedent on restitution tied to hit-and-run)
- State v. Irby, 170 Wn.2d 874 (procedural limits on off-the-record juror fitness determinations)
- Schuette v. State, 822 So. 2d 1275 (Florida case rejecting restitution for suspended-license conviction where additional proximate-relationship test applied)