State Of Washington v. John A. Holcomb
75245-6
| Wash. Ct. App. | Aug 7, 2017Background
- On Sept. 15, 2015, Shaunna Holcomb and John Holcomb fought; John grabbed her arms, pulled away her phone, threw it, choked her until she lost consciousness, and she later called 911 and reported the incident.
- The State charged John with Assault in the Second Degree (strangulation) (Count I) and Interfering with the Reporting of Domestic Violence (Count II).
- At trial the State pursued Assault in the Fourth Degree as the predicate domestic-violence offense for the interference count, and the court instructed the jury accordingly; defense objected to instructing on an uncharged predicate.
- The jury acquitted on the Assault II count but convicted on the Interfering-with-Reporting count.
- On appeal Holcomb argued the information was constitutionally deficient because it failed to allege the specific underlying domestic-violence offense (assault in the fourth degree) required by RCW 9A.36.150; he also raised sufficiency and double-jeopardy arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Holcomb) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether commission of a specific domestic-violence crime is an essential element of RCW 9A.36.150 | N/A (State contended generalized allegation sufficed or relied on jury instruction practice) | A specific domestic-violence offense is an essential element and must be alleged | Held: Commission of a specific RCW 10.99.020 domestic-violence crime is an essential element that must be alleged and proved |
| Whether the amended information sufficiently apprised Holcomb of the predicate offense for the interference charge | The information’s reference to a domestic-violence crime plus a separately charged Assault II sufficed (citing Nonog) | Information was deficient because it never alleged Assault IV as the predicate offense actually argued and instructed | Held: Information was deficient; it did not reasonably apprise Holcomb that Assault IV was the predicate, so dismissal required |
| Whether jury unanimity / sufficiency issues required reversal on the verdict | N/A (State argued testimony supported the alternative means instructed) | Holcomb argued insufficient evidence supported instructed alternatives and unanimity problem existed | Held: Sufficient evidence supported the two alternative means (attempting to prevent calling 911 and reporting to police); no unanimity error as both alternatives were supported |
| Whether double jeopardy bars retrial on the interference charge | N/A (State argued dismissal without prejudice appropriate) | Holcomb argued acquittal on Assault II should preclude retrial because info implicitly used Assault II as the predicate | Held: Double jeopardy does not bar retrial; dismissal without prejudice is the correct remedy for a deficient information |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Nonoq, 169 Wn.2d 220 (2010) (discusses sufficiency of information for interference-with-reporting and remedy for deficient information)
- State v. Kjorsvik, 117 Wn.2d 93 (1991) (liberal construction test for criminal informations)
- State v. Owens, 180 Wn.2d 90 (2014) (unanimity and alternative-means analysis)
- State v. Woodlyn, 188 Wn.2d 157 (2017) (clarifies limits of post hoc appellate unanimity inquiry)
- State v. Pineda-Pineda, 154 Wn. App. 653 (2010) (information must include essential elements and supporting facts)