State Of Washington v. Robert Raymond Raethke
75079-8
| Wash. Ct. App. | Dec 26, 2017Background
- On April 30, 2014, A.C. was hugged and kissed by Robert Raethke on a trail; she pushed him off, told him to stop, and later said she feared she would be raped.
- The State charged Raethke with second-degree assault committed with sexual motivation (intent to commit indecent liberties by forcible compulsion).
- The trial court admitted prior-acts evidence (testimony from three prior victims and certified prior judgments for first‑degree rape and attempted rape) under ER 404(b) to prove intent and sexual motivation.
- The jury convicted Raethke of second-degree assault and found sexual motivation; at sentencing the court, relying on certified judgments, designated him a persistent offender under the POAA and imposed life without parole.
- Raethke appealed, challenging (1) the reasonable‑doubt instruction language, (2) the trial court’s bench finding of prior convictions (rather than jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt), (3) double jeopardy based on use of the same facts for offense and enhancement, and (4) sufficiency of evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Raethke's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonable‑doubt instruction wording ("abiding belief") | Instruction improperly characterized jury's role and misstated reasonable doubt. | WPIC 4.01 (including the "abiding belief" option) is approved by Washington precedent. | Court upheld the instruction as consistent with State v. Bennett and not erroneous. |
| Bench finding of prior convictions for POAA sentence | Sixth Amendment/Due Process violation because prior convictions increasing punishment were not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. | Prior convictions are excepted from Apprendi/Alleyne rule; judge may find prior convictions by preponderance for POAA. | Court affirmed bench finding; Witherspoon and other Washington precedent allow judge to find priors by preponderance. |
| Double jeopardy / using same fact twice (element and enhancement) | Using sexual‑motivation finding both as an element and as POAA enhancement violates double jeopardy. | Single sentence under POAA does not impose multiple punishments; Washington precedent permits overlap. | Court held no double jeopardy violation: single sentence for single offense and using same fact for enhancement does not bar sentence. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for assault with intent to commit indecent liberties | Facts show only lesser assault (e.g., fourth degree); insufficient to prove intent to commit indecent liberties. | Victim’s resistance, fear, and similarity to prior assaults support forcible compulsion and intent. | Court found evidence sufficient for second‑degree assault with intent to commit indecent liberties. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bennett, 161 Wn.2d 303 (Washington) (approves WPIC 4.01 reasonable‑doubt language)
- State v. Witherspoon, 180 Wn.2d 875 (Washington) (POAA priors may be found by judge by preponderance)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (general rule that facts increasing penalty are elements, but prior‑conviction exception)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004) (limitations on judicial factfinding that increase sentence)
- State v. Kelley, 168 Wn.2d 72 (Washington) (double jeopardy and enhancements analysis)
- Jones v. Thomas, 491 U.S. 376 (U.S. 1989) (multifactor discussion of single sentence and double jeopardy)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932) (same‑elements test for double jeopardy)