State of Washington v. Joseph Felix Delgado, 33174-1

Background

Joseph Delgado was charged with multiple offenses arising from abuse and no-contact order violations involving his estranged partner, Lisa Jacobs, including felony stalking and two counts of violating court orders.
Incidents included a November 20, 2013 physical altercation at a car dealership, multiple voicemail messages (one containing insults), and repeated contacts during late December 2013–January 22, 2014.
Jacobs at times reconciled with Delgado, wrote recantation letters (later saying they were coerced), and preserved three voicemail messages as evidence; she testified some messages did not make her fearful but that others did.
The State’s third amended information charged stalking alleging Jacobs “was placed in a reasonable fear” that Delgado intended to injure her; Delgado did not object to the information or the jury instruction at trial.
The jury acquitted Delgado of witness intimidation and one violation of a court order, but convicted him of stalking and two other order violations; Delgado appealed claiming defects in the charging document, the jury instruction, and insufficiency of evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Delgado)	Held
1. Whether the third amended information adequately alleged both subjective fear and objective reasonableness required by RCW 9A.46.110(1)(b)	The charging language alleging the victim "was placed in a reasonable fear" adequately pleaded the statutory elements.	The information collapsed two separate elements into one phrase, failing to allege both that the victim was placed in fear and that the fear was objectively reasonable.	The court applied liberal construction and held the information was sufficient; no actual prejudice shown.
2. Whether the to-convict jury instruction unconstitutionally omitted an element by using the phrase "reasonably feared"	The instruction’s shorthand correctly conveyed the law and is supported by precedent using similar phrasing.	Combining the statutory elements into one phrase collapsed subjective fear and objective reasonableness, violating the requirement to instruct on every element.	The court held the instruction was adequate; "reasonably feared" is acceptable shorthand and informed the jury of the law.
3. Sufficiency of the evidence that Jacobs was subjectively fearful and that her fear was objectively reasonable	The State presented evidence of prior physical assaults, threatening voicemail(s), and Jacobs’ testimony that some conduct placed her in fear.	Delgado argued many calls were not frightening, Jacobs reconciled repeatedly, deleted most voicemails, and did not seek medical/counseling, so evidence was insufficient.	Viewing facts in the light most favorable to the State, a rational juror could find both subjective and objectively reasonable fear; evidence was sufficient.
4. Costs on appeal	N/A	Delgado requested denial of State appellate costs due to indigence.	The court denied costs to the State under RAP 14.2.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Campbell, 125 Wn.2d 797 (defendant may raise a defective information for first time on appeal)
State v. Kjorsvik, 117 Wn.2d 93 (liberal construction rule for amendable informations and prejudice requirement)
State v. E.J.Y., 113 Wn. App. 940 (statute requires subjective fear that is also reasonable)
State v. Read, 147 Wn.2d 238 (objective reasonableness inquiry in self-defense context)
State v. Johnson, 185 Wn. App. 655 (uses "placed in reasonable fear" as shorthand for stalking elements)
State v. Becklin, 133 Wn. App. 610 (stalking requires victim reasonably fear personal injury)
State v. Askham, 120 Wn. App. 872 (explaining stalking elements, including reasonable fear)
State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216 (standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Homan, 181 Wn.2d 102 (appellate insufficiency review admits state's evidence and inferences)
State v. Aumick, 126 Wn.2d 422 (failure to instruct on every element is constitutional error)
State v. Pirtle, 127 Wn.2d 628 (de novo review of jury instructions)