State Of Washington v. Louis Joe Lasack
49176-1
| Wash. Ct. App. | Dec 5, 2017Background
- On Aug. 13, 2015 Lasack was arrested for second-degree robbery; he later signed a scheduling order requiring appearance on Dec. 29, 2015.
- Lasack failed to appear on Dec. 29; a bench warrant issued and he was arrested Jan. 5, 2016.
- The State charged him with second-degree robbery and two counts of bail jumping.
- At trial Lasack testified his radiator blew up while leaving home and he worked on the car (with help) and lacked funds for bus fare, which prevented his appearance.
- The trial court refused Lasack’s requested jury instruction on the uncontrollable-circumstances affirmative defense, concluding the record lacked facts meeting the statutory definition and no evidence showed he surrendered or appeared as soon as the circumstances ceased.
- The jury convicted Lasack of robbery and one count of bail jumping (for the Dec. 29 failure to appear); Lasack appealed the refused instruction and appellate costs issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the uncontrollable-circumstances affirmative defense to bail jumping | The State: trial court properly withheld instruction because no factual basis supported the statutory defense | Lasack: car trouble and lack of bus fare were factual questions for the jury and supported the affirmative defense | No error — as a matter of law the record lacked sufficient evidence (including failure to show he appeared "as soon as" circumstances ceased) to warrant the instruction |
| Whether the court should deny appellate costs if the State seeks them | The State: may seek costs under RAP 14.2 | Lasack: asked the court to refuse to award appellate costs | Court declined to rule now; Lasack may challenge any cost bill on inability to pay |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fisher, 185 Wn.2d 836 (2016) (explains standard for when trial court must give instruction on a defendant’s theory and threshold legal question of sufficiency for affirmative-defense instructions)
- State v. Williams, 93 Wn. App. 340 (1998) (finder-of-fact role—court should not weigh evidence when assessing instruction sufficiency)
- State v. Kurtz, 178 Wn.2d 466 (2013) (discusses appellate treatment of lower-court precedent)
- State v. Demery, 144 Wn.2d 753 (2001) (definition of testimony limited to sworn trial evidence)