State Of Washington v. Konstantin v. Statovoy, 49620-8

Statovoy assaulted his ex-wife in violation of a protection order; he was charged with five counts including second-degree assault (count 1 — designated domestic violence) and two misdemeanor domestic-violence-designated assaults (counts 2 & 3).
At trial the jury convicted Statovoy on all counts and answered a single special verdict form (Special Verdict A) "yes" that Statovoy and the victim were members of the same family or household.
The court’s jury instructions told the jury to use Special Verdict A if it found guilt on any of counts 1, 2, or 3; defense did not object to using a single special verdict form or request separate forms for each count.
The superior court noted domestic-violence was pled and proved on count 1 (felony) and counts 2–3 (misdemeanors) and treated the misdemeanors as repetitive domestic violence priors under former RCW 9.94A.525(21)/9.94A.030(42) when calculating the offender score.
Statovoy received an offender score of 2 and was sentenced to 23 months confinement; he appealed arguing the single special verdict form violated his Sixth Amendment jury-trial right because the court used it to impose sentencing consequences for multiple counts without individualized jury findings.

Issue	Statovoy's Argument	State's/Respondent's Argument	Held
Whether a single special verdict form identifying family/household status satisfies the Sixth Amendment for multiple domestic-violence counts	Single form insufficient — jury must make individualized findings for each DV-designated count before those convictions may be used to increase offender score	Single unanimous finding on family/household status applies to each convicted count; DV designation is not a separate crime but a status applied to underlying convictions	A single special verdict form was sufficient here; no Sixth Amendment violation

United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (1995) (jury is the factfinder on disputed factual issues)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing punishment beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to jury)
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (Apprendi principle applied to state sentencing guidelines)
Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimum must be found by jury)
State v. Goodman, 108 Wn. App. 355 (2001) (domestic-violence designation is not a separate crime altering elements of the underlying offense)
State v. Rodriguez, 183 Wn. App. 947 (2014) (application of repetitive domestic violence priors under former RCW 9.94A provisions)
State v. Mandanas, 168 Wn.2d 84 (2010) (statutory requirements for imposing multiple sentencing enhancements)
State v. Conover, 183 Wn.2d 706 (2015) (treatment of overlapping sentencing enhancements)
State v. Barry, 183 Wn.2d 297 (2015) (presumption that juries follow court instructions)