State Of Washington, V Michael J. Moriarty
48337-8
| Wash. Ct. App. | Apr 11, 2017Background
- On June 12, 2015, Annie Booth's unleashed dog barked at 76-year-old Michael Moriarty on a beach; Moriarty retrieved a folding knife and shouted at the dog.
- Booth approached, grabbed Moriarty’s shoulder to pull him away; Moriarty then allegedly turned, attempted to stab Booth in the face, and stabbed her hand.
- Moriarty testified he was defending himself from the dog and denied stabbing Booth; he claimed the knife went into the sand when Booth shoved him.
- The State charged Moriarty with first-degree assault with a deadly-weapon enhancement; after a bench trial the court acquitted on first-degree assault but convicted him of second-degree assault and found the deadly-weapon enhancement not proven.
- Moriarty appealed (arguing an invalid jury-waiver acceptance, misapplied self-defense law, prosecutorial misconduct, and insufficiency of evidence); the State cross-appealed the trial court’s authorization of alternative sentencing (electronic home monitoring/community service).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed conviction issues but held the trial court erred in imposing an alternative sentence for a violent offender and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Moriarty) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of jury-trial waiver | Waiver was valid—written waiver, counsel consulted, court admonitions satisfied CrR 6.1 | Waiver invalid because Moriarty had hearing issues and may not have understood waiver | Waiver valid; court properly accepted it (knowing, intelligent, voluntary) |
| Application of self-defense | Self-defense not applicable to assault on Booth because Moriarty defended against the dog, not Booth | Self-defense should apply because one may defend against an animal and his fear justified his conduct | Court properly concluded no self-defense against Booth; findings supported conviction |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (closing) | Prosecutor’s argument drew reasonable inferences and did not shift burden; comments were not prejudicial | Prosecutor vouched, undermined presumption of innocence, misstated law of self-defense | Some statements (e.g., "credible to me") were improper but not prejudicial; no reversible misconduct in bench trial context |
| Sufficiency of evidence | Booth’s testimony and trial findings support second-degree assault | Evidence insufficient to prove assault beyond reasonable doubt | Sufficient evidence supported conviction for second-degree assault |
| Cross-appeal: alternative sentence authority | Trial court lacked statutory authority to impose electronic monitoring/community service for violent offenses | State invited/failed to preserve sentencing error; issue moot because sentence served | Trial court erred: alternative confinement not authorized for violent offender (assault 2nd); reverse and remand for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Benitez, 175 Wn. App. 116 (waiver must be knowing, intelligent, voluntary; written waiver is strong evidence)
- State v. Pierce, 134 Wn. App. 763 (personal expression of waiver suffices; extensive colloquy not required)
- State v. Homan, 181 Wn.2d 102 (appellate review of bench trial limited to whether substantial evidence supports findings)
- State v. Werner, 170 Wn.2d 333 (elements of self-defense: subjective fear, objectively reasonable, no greater force than necessary)
- State v. Emery, 174 Wn.2d 741 (standard for reviewing unobjected-to prosecutorial misconduct; must show comments were flagrant/uncurable and prejudicial)
- State v. Paulson, 131 Wn. App. 579 (trial court may only impose statutorily authorized sentences; sentence exceeding authority is void)