State Of Washington v. Michael Clark
74441-1
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jul 31, 2017Background
- In June 2015 Brittany Codomo obtained a domestic violence protection order (temporary then permanent) against Michael Clark; the orders included an instruction to surrender firearms.
- Clark rented a storage area; a September search pursuant to warrant found multiple firearms, including two pistols registered to Clark.
- The State charged Clark with two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm in the second degree under RCW 9.41.040(2)(a), based on his being subject to a qualifying protective order.
- Clark waived a jury, submitted on a stipulated record, and was convicted by the trial court.
- On appeal Clark argued insufficiency of the evidence because the protective order did not “explicitly prohibit” use of physical force as required by statute.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and evaluated whether the Order’s language met the statutory “explicitly prohibit” requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the protective order "explicitly prohibit[ed] the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force" under RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(ii)(C)(11) so as to bar firearm possession | State: The Order need not quote statutory text; it is sufficient if it clearly prohibits physical force | Clark: The Order fails the statute because it does not explicitly mention "physical force" or use the statute's exact language | The court held the Order's prohibitions (e.g., "from causing physical harm, bodily injury, assault... and from... threatening") are explicit enough and satisfy the statute; convictions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Larson, 184 Wn.2d 843 (discusses elements and State burden beyond a reasonable doubt)
- State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192 (standard for sufficiency review)
- State v. Kintz, 169 Wn.2d 537 (use of dictionary to discern plain meaning of nontechnical statutory terms)
- United States v. Coccia, 446 F.3d 233 (First Circuit: protective orders need not use statute's exact words; commonsense reading)
- United States v. DuBose, 598 F.3d 726 (Eleventh Circuit: broader reading of order consistent with statute's purpose)
- United States v. Sanchez, 639 F.3d 1201 (Ninth Circuit: underlying order must contain explicit terms substantially similar in meaning to the statute)
- United States v. Bostic, 168 F.3d 718 (Fourth Circuit: order restraining defendant "from abusing" unambiguously satisfied federal statute)