State of Washington v. Rodney Clifford Menard
197 Wash. App. 901
Wash. Ct. App.2017Background
- Rodney Menard owned and lived at a multi-tenant residence in Yakima where he rented rooms to five individuals.
- Tenants and visitors repeatedly used methamphetamine at the residence; Menard admitted "most people do" when asked if visitors use drugs.
- A DEA confidential informant purchased methamphetamine at the home; a later search found 25.5 grams of drugs, paraphernalia, and 14 occupants (one person had meth next to her pillow).
- Two tenants told officers that 10–15 different people came daily to the house to use drugs.
- Menard was charged under RCW 69.50.402(f) (the "drug house" statute). He filed a pretrial Knapstad motion arguing the evidence could not prove the residence’s primary purpose was drug use; the trial court dismissed the charge. The State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether maintaining a dwelling under RCW 69.50.402(f) requires drug use to be the owner’s primary purpose for the residence | State: proof that drug use was a substantial purpose for which persons resorted to the dwelling suffices | Menard: statute requires that the dwelling be maintained for the principal (primary) purpose of facilitating drug use | Court: The statute focuses on the purpose for which users resort to the place; it does not require the owner’s primary purpose. Proof that use of the dwelling for drugs was a substantial and ongoing purpose supports the offense |
| Whether the undisputed facts showed only isolated incidents or a continuing pattern sufficient to "maintain" a drug dwelling | State: evidence of frequent daily visitors, a CI buy, multiple occupants using drugs, and drug quantities/paraphernalia show continuity | Menard: incidents were incidental to a lawful residential purpose and not the dwelling’s major purpose | Court: Evidence supported ongoing and substantial drug use at the residence (continuity and substantial purpose), so dismissal was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Knapstad, 107 Wn.2d 346 (1986) (establishes procedure for pretrial motion to dismiss where State cannot prove elements)
- State v. Ceglowski, 103 Wn. App. 346 (2000) (discusses "maintain" under drug-house statute and need for continuing conduct; reversed conviction where evidence was limited)
- State v. Fernandez, 89 Wn. App. 292 (1997) (upholds maintenance conviction where multiple controlled buys, high traffic, and drug-related items support selling/storing; distinguishes using-on-site issue)
- State v. Montano, 169 Wn.2d 872 (2010) (Knapstad motion standards reaffirmed)
- State v. Conte, 159 Wn.2d 797 (2007) (appellate standard of review for Knapstad dismissals)
- United States v. Morgan, 117 F.3d 849 (5th Cir. 1997) (interprets federal crack-house statute to require evidence of control, duration, and continuity)