State Of Washington v. Kebede B. Abawaji
74256-6
| Wash. Ct. App. | Mar 6, 2017Background
- Kebede Abawaji and Tigist Belte (married, later separated) had an earlier November 1, 2014 incident where Abawaji allegedly choked Belte, threatened to kill her, and reportedly obtained a knife; Seattle Municipal Court charged him with assault in the fourth degree and unlawful use of a weapon, but those charges were dismissed when Belte did not appear.
- On April 1, 2015, after Abawaji told 911 he hit Belte in the head with a hammer, police arrested him; a hammer was recovered from his car and Abawaji was charged in King County Superior Court with attempted murder and assault (first degree) for the April incident, plus felony harassment based on the November threat.
- Abawaji moved to dismiss the felony harassment charge under CrR 4.3.1 (mandatory joinder), arguing the November municipal charges were "related offenses" that should have been joined with the superior court felony.
- The State argued municipal and superior courts do not share the same jurisdiction for purposes of CrR 4.3.1 and alternatively invoked the "ends of justice" exception because the municipal charges were dismissed after the victim was pressured not to testify.
- The trial court denied dismissal; a jury convicted Abawaji of attempted murder in the second degree (lesser-included), assault (first degree, later vacated on double jeopardy grounds), and felony harassment; Abawaji appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CrR 4.3.1 mandatory joinder required dismissal of the superior-court felony harassment charge because related municipal charges arose from the same conduct | Abawaji: the November municipal charges and the felony harassment are "related offenses" based on the same conduct and thus must be joined or the later charge dismissed | State: municipal and superior courts do not share the "same court" jurisdiction under CrR 4.3.1; alternatively, the ends-of-justice exception applies because municipal charges were dismissed after the victim was pressured | Reversed? No — court held mandatory joinder inapplicable because municipal court and superior court do not possess the same jurisdiction for purposes of CrR 4.3.1; trial court did not err in denying dismissal |
| Whether the "ends of justice" exception to joinder required denial of dismissal | (If reached) Abawaji implied the exception should not save the charge because joinder was required | State: ends-of-justice exception applies because municipal charges were dismissed after community pressure on the victim to drop charges | Court did not reach this issue on the merits because joinder did not apply; preserved possibility for State to argue ends-of-justice below |
| Sufficiency of evidence that the hammer was used in the assault | Abawaji: lack of physical evidence on the hammer (no blood/tissue) undermines proof that hammer was the weapon | State: victim testimony, Abawaji’s 911 admission, and recovery of the hammer near Abawaji suffice | Held: Evidence was sufficient; reasonable juror could find elements beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Various trial procedure and evidence complaints (e.g., missing test results, interpreter issues, jury confusion) | Abawaji: alleged withheld hammer tests, excluded psychological evaluation, lack of interpreter for witness, jury coercion, inconsistent testimony about a knife | State: record shows no tests or no favorable results, evaluation not offered at trial, witness understood questions, jurors clarified questions, plastic vs. real knife irrelevant to harassment charge | Held: Claims without record support fail; jury polling confusion resolved; no reversible error found |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gamble, 168 Wn.2d 161 (2010) (acts in a single criminal episode constitute the "same conduct" for joinder analysis)
- State v. Fladebo, 53 Wn. App. 116 (1988) (municipal court lacks jurisdiction over state felonies; mandatory joinder does not apply across courts with separate jurisdictions)
- State v. Dixon, 42 Wn. App. 315 (1985) (discussed related-offense/joinder issues; not dispositive of jurisdiction question when state concedes concurrent jurisdiction)
- State v. Kindsvogel, 149 Wn.2d 477 (2003) (standard of review for joinder questions; legal questions reviewed de novo)