State of Washington v. Karion H. Thomas
34634-0
| Wash. Ct. App. | Dec 5, 2017Background
- On December 11, 2015, 16‑year‑old Karion Thomas attended a party at Ruben Lizarraga’s house where juveniles were drinking. A physical fight between Ruben and his father Joseph spilled into the backyard.
- As Joseph lay on the ground, Thomas wrapped an arm around Joseph’s neck, compressing his throat; another youth (Darion Simon) pulled Thomas off after an estimated 10–15 seconds.
- Joseph reported difficulty breathing, feeling winded and weak, and later gave a written statement saying Thomas grabbed and choked him.
- Police arrived after all juveniles had fled; at trial Joseph and other witnesses gave varying accounts about observing the choking. The court admitted Erica Kauffman’s 911 call as an exhibit.
- Juvenile court convicted Thomas of second degree assault by strangulation/suffocation (RCW 9A.36.021(1)(g)); he was sentenced to 52–65 weeks in juvenile rehabilitation. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and sought withdrawal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for second‑degree assault by strangulation | State: Partial compression and interference with breathing satisfies statutory definition | Thomas: Joseph did not testify to complete obstruction of breathing, so evidence was insufficient | Court: Affirmed — statute covers partial as well as complete obstruction; evidence sufficient |
| Admission of 911 call over hearsay/confrontation objections | State: Call was an excited utterance and non‑testimonial to meet an ongoing emergency | Thomas: Call was hearsay and violated Confrontation Clause | Court: Admissible as excited utterance and nontestimonial; no Confrontation Clause violation |
| Admission of Joseph’s prior written statement in rebuttal | State: Prior statement rebuts defense implication that Joseph never reported choking | Thomas: Hearsay / improper rebuttal | Court: Admissible under prior‑statement exceptions (prior consistent/inconsistent testimony rules) |
| Use of predisposition report at disposition to calculate criminal history | State: Statute allows reliance on predisposition reports in disposition hearings | Thomas: Use violated due process | Court: Permitted under RCW 13.40.150 and precedent; no due process violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures when appellate counsel seeks to withdraw)
- Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000) (states may tailor Anders‑like procedures)
- State v. Wade, 133 Wn. App. 855 (2006) (discussing Anders procedure in Washington)
- State v. Rodriguez, 187 Wn. App. 922 (2015) (strangulation statute covers partial obstruction)
- State v. Reed, 168 Wn. App. 553 (2012) (911 calls and Confrontation Clause analysis)
- State v. Thomas, 150 Wn.2d 821 (2004) (prior consistent statement admissibility to rebut fabrication inference)
- State v. JA.B., 98 Wn. App. 662 (2000) (use of predisposition report and criminal history at disposition)