State Of Washington v. Scottye Miller, 71559-3

Background

Scottye Miller and Tricia Patricelli had a long abusive relationship; Miller stayed at her apartment in Oct. 2012 and killed her by stabbing her more than 30 times. Miller admitted the killing but claimed he did not intend to kill her (raised issues of premeditation and provocation).
Prior to the killing Miller sent multiple threatening texts (including to his mother saying he was going to kill Patricelli) and repeatedly called/texted a roommate to get access to Patricelli's apartment; he was arrested the same morning and later admitted stabbing her.
At trial the State presented witnesses who relayed Patricelli’s out-of-court statements that she was afraid of Miller; some statements recounted Miller’s prior threatening conduct (e.g., letters, balcony intrusion).
Miller objected to hearsay admissions; the jury convicted him of first-degree murder. In a bifurcated sentencing jury, the jury found two aggravating factors: (1) the offense was committed shortly after Miller’s release from incarceration (15 days), and (2) the offense was aggravated domestic violence; the court imposed a 600-month exceptional sentence.
On appeal Miller argued (a) the hearsay admitting Patricelli’s statements was irrelevant/erroneous, (b) admitted statements describing Miller’s conduct were improper hearsay, (c) cumulative error warranted reversal, and (d) the rapid-recidivism aggravator was inapplicable.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of decedent's out-of-court statements under state-of-mind exception	State: decedent's statements about fear were admissible to show her state of mind when Miller put that state at issue	Miller: decedent's state of mind was irrelevant; hearsay admission was improper	Court: Decedent's fear was relevant because Miller claimed provocation/accident; statements showing her fear were admissible under ER 803(a)(3)
Admission of statements that describe defendant's conduct (incorporating Miller's past threats/acts)	State: those statements corroborated conduct and paralleled other admissible evidence (and 404(b) evidence of prior acts was admitted)	Miller: statements describing Miller's conduct were hearsay not saved by state-of-mind exception and not admissible via ER 404(b)	Court: Error to admit statements that described Miller's conduct because Parr bars using state-of-mind exception to introduce testimony describing defendant's acts; 404(b) is not a hearsay exception
Prejudice / cumulative error from improperly admitted hearsay	Miller: errors were prejudicial and cumulative, requiring reversal	State: errors were minor and harmless given overwhelming evidence (admissions and texts)	Court: Errors harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; evidence of premeditation and threats (texts, calls, admissions, officer testimony) was overwhelming; cumulative-error claim fails
Use of "shortly after release" (rapid recidivism) as aggravating factor for exceptional sentence	Miller: 15 days is not necessarily "shortly after" and court relied on criminal history (improper)	State: 15 days is a permissible, reasonable basis; rapid recidivism distinct from mere criminal history	Court: 15 days falls within "shortly after"; jury had sufficient evidence; even if other aggravator vacated, rapid recidivism alone justifies the exceptional sentence

Key Cases Cited

State v. Parr, 93 Wn.2d 95 (Wash. 1980) (state-of-mind hearsay admissible when declarant's state is at issue, but not testimony describing defendant's conduct)
State v. Athan, 160 Wn.2d 354 (Wash. 2007) (decedent's statements about lack of romantic interest admissible to counter defendant's theory)
State v. Ohlson, 162 Wn.2d 1 (Wash. 2007) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings—abuse of discretion)
State v. Thurlby, 184 Wn.2d 618 (Wash. 2015) (abuse of discretion articulated)
State v. Gentry, 125 Wn.2d 570 (Wash. 1994) (premeditation and deliberation explained)
State v. Butler, 75 Wn. App. 47 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994) (rapid recidivism aggravator described as offense shortly after release)
State v. Combs, 156 Wn. App. 502 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010) (six months found too long in that case but acknowledged context matters)
State v. Saltz, 137 Wn. App. 576 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007) (one-month post-release supported rapid-recividism-based exceptional sentence)
State v. Powell, 126 Wn.2d 244 (Wash. 1995) (ER 404(b) is not a hearsay exception)
State v. Neal, 144 Wn.2d 600 (Wash. 2001) (harmless-error standard for improperly admitted evidence)
State v. Stubbs, 170 Wn.2d 117 (Wash. 2010) (jury must find aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Yates, 161 Wn.2d 714 (Wash. 2007) (sufficiency review for jury findings)
State v. Zatkovich, 113 Wn. App. 70 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002) (sentence can be upheld if at least one proper aggravating factor supports it)
State v. Davis, 175 Wn.2d 287 (Wash. 2012) (cumulative error framework)
In re Pers. Restraint of Cross, 180 Wn.2d 664 (Wash. 2014) (overwhelming evidence standard defeats cumulative-error claims)