State of Washington v. Justin Ryan Graham
34055-4
| Wash. Ct. App. | Apr 27, 2017Background
- Justin Graham was arrested after neighbors saw him assault his girlfriend; his brother Brandon confronted a neighbor, Don Maupin, saying "You're dead."
- Brandon later attempted to attack Maupin with brass knuckles, left after being recorded, and threatened to return.
- In a recorded jail call, Justin told Brandon Maupin and his girlfriend "need to get their faces smashed in" and referred to them as "witnesses" to his pending domestic violence charge.
- About a week after the call, Brandon assaulted one of Maupin's associates and punched Maupin, saying, "This is for snitching on my brother."
- Justin was charged and convicted after a bench trial of intimidating a witness under RCW 9A.72.110(1)(a) for attempting to influence a witness's testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports conviction for witness intimidation by attempt to influence testimony | State: Justin's recorded statements linking harm to Maupin as "witnesses" show intent to influence testimony | Graham: No evidence he intended to influence testimony at trial; threats were not explicitly targeted to affect court testimony | Court: Affirmed — context tied threats to anticipated testimony; intent may be inferred from statements calling them "witnesses" |
| Whether threats communicated via a third party suffice | State: Threats through Brandon still constitute intimidation | Graham: (implicit) Third-party communication severs direct threat element | Court: Third-party communication does not bar conviction; threats remain actionable |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Brown, 162 Wn.2d 422 (2007) (threat must be aimed at influencing testimony, not merely deterring police reports)
- State v. Jensen, 116 Wn.2d 466 (1991) (statute does not cover misguided out-of-court "settlement" attempts with victim witnesses)
- State v. Scherck, 9 Wn. App. 792 (1973) (trier of fact must consider literal and inferential meanings of defendant's words)
- State v. Gill, 103 Wn. App. 435 (2000) (same—interpretation of threatening language may rely on context)
- State v. Ozuna, 184 Wn.2d 238 (2015) (a threat remains a threat even if communicated to a third party)
- State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192 (1992) (on appeal, facts are construed in the light most favorable to the State)