State of Washington v. Juan Carlos Cortez Barajas
33419-8
| Wash. Ct. App. | May 16, 2017Background
- On March 4, 2014, Juan Cortez Barajas restrained Maria Guzman during an altercation at her parents' home; she eventually escaped and drove back to Quincy where Alvaro (Mr.) Diaz and police responded.
- Officer Bushy spoke with Ms. Guzman at the scene; Mr. Diaz later relayed a conversation with Ms. Guzman from the drive and recorded later phone calls from Barajas threatening Diaz.
- In recorded calls (Oct. 2014) Barajas suggested paying Diaz to prevent testimony and warned Diaz that he would be known as a "snitch" if he testified.
- The State charged Barajas with first-degree burglary, second-degree assault, unlawful imprisonment, bribing a witness, and intimidating a witness; jury convicted on unlawful imprisonment, bribing a witness, and intimidating a witness (not guilty on burglary and assault).
- On appeal and in a consolidated personal restraint petition, Barajas challenged admission of hearsay (Officer Bushy), sufficiency of evidence for unlawful imprisonment and witness intimidation, prosecutor closing argument, and argued bribery and intimidation convictions should merge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Officer Bushy hearsay (excited utterance) | State: testimony fit excited-utterance exception; offer of proof supported admission | Barajas: Officer Bushy’s hearsay was inadmissible because Guzman was not under the requisite stress; admission prejudiced him | Waived — Barajas failed to object at trial to Officer Bushy’s hearsay; appellate review denied under Guloy requirement to preserve specific objection |
| Sufficiency — unlawful imprisonment (restraint element) | State: evidence (grabbing, headlock, preventing exit) established knowing restraint | Barajas: Guzman had an avenue of escape and ultimately left, so no lasting restraint | Evidence sufficient — jury could find Barajas knowingly restrained Guzman; temporary escape does not negate unlawful imprisonment |
| Sufficiency — intimidating a witness (threat element) | State: recorded statements (threats, "you'll be known ... as a snitch") constitute threats to induce absence | Barajas: statements were idle talk/jest, not serious threats | Evidence sufficient — jury reasonably found statements were threats under the instruction; supports conviction |
| Prosecutor closing argument (alleged misstatement) | Barajas: prosecutor misstated defendant's words and suggested impermissible language ("snitches get stitches") | State: closing argument draws reasonable inferences; jury instructions cure any misstatement | Waived and harmless — no timely objection; jury instructions told jurors lawyers' remarks are not evidence, so not egregious error |
| Merger / Double Jeopardy (bribery vs. intimidation) | Barajas: bribing a witness should merge into intimidation because both aim to induce witness absence | State: statutes have distinct elements (bribe requires benefit; intimidation requires threat) | No merger; no double jeopardy — offenses are legally and factually distinct; convictions may stand |
Key Cases Cited
- Guloy v. State, 104 Wn.2d 412 (party must make same specific evidentiary objection at trial to preserve issue for appeal)
- Boast v. State, 87 Wn.2d 447 (same preservation principle for appellate review)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- Green v. State, 94 Wn.2d 216 (appellate view of evidence in sufficiency review)
- Swan v. State, 114 Wn.2d 613 (standard for unobjected prosecutorial error requiring relief)
- Belgarde v. State, 110 Wn.2d 504 (same prosecutorial-misconduct review standard)
- Stenson v. State, 132 Wn.2d 668 (prosecutor's latitude in arguing inferences)
- Vladovic v. State, 99 Wn.2d 413 (merger doctrine and legislative intent analysis)
- Calle v. State, 125 Wn.2d 769 (double jeopardy test for whether offenses are the same)