State Of Washington v. Shelly Arndt
48525-7
| Wash. Ct. App. | Dec 12, 2017Background
- On Feb. 23, 2014 a house fire killed Darcy Veeder Jr.; Sean and Kelly O’Neil and others escaped. The State charged Shelly Arndt with aggravated first‑degree murder (with a first‑degree arson aggravator and other special allegations), first‑degree felony murder predicated on arson, first‑degree arson, and six counts of second‑degree assault.
- Kitsap County Fire Marshal David Lynam concluded the fire originated at the northeast corner of a downstairs couch and was incendiary, likely caused by applying a handheld flame to a beanbag chair next to the couch; other experts (Iskra, Rice) largely agreed and applied NFPA 921 (the scientific method for fire investigations).
- Arndt’s expert, Dale Mann (forensic chemist), performed a review (not a full NFPA 921 origin‑and‑cause investigation), visited the scene, and conducted selective testing (e.g., polystyrene sampling) and observations (melted plastic bucket remnants) that challenged Lynam’s beanbag hypothesis.
- The trial court excluded substantial portions of Mann’s testing‑based opinions (lifting the melted bucket, polystyrene test results, demonstrative tests, flashover opinion, some smoke‑visibility analysis) on grounds Mann had not followed NFPA 921 methodology; Hanson (a former fire‑marshal employee) was excluded for lack of relevance and expert foundation.
- Jury convicted Arndt on all counts; sentencing imposed LWOP on aggravated first‑degree murder; the court entered (but did not sentence on) a separate first‑degree felony murder conviction. On appeal the court affirmed most evidentiary rulings, found one exclusion (Mann’s reliance on police/coroner reports) erroneous but harmless, and vacated the first‑degree felony murder conviction on double jeopardy grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant (Arndt) Argument | Respondent (State) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of Mann’s testing‑based observations (lifting melted bucket; polystyrene tests; demonstrative tests) | Mann’s testing and scene manipulations produced admissible, highly probative evidence that undermined the State’s origin/cause theory and was necessary to present a defense | Mann’s procedures departed from NFPA 921; his selective testing was unreliable under Frye/ER 702/ER 703 and invasion of investigator role justified exclusion | Trial court did not abuse discretion in excluding those testing‑based opinions and demonstrative evidence because Mann failed to follow accepted NFPA 921 methodology; exclusion affirmed |
| Exclusion of Mann’s opinions based on police/coroner reports | Mann reasonably and customarily relied on such reports; exclusion deprived defense of material bases for his critique of Lynam | Mann did not show these materials are reasonably relied upon in the field; relevance/foundation lacking | Court erred in excluding Mann’s use of police/coroner reports but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; verdict unaffected |
| Exclusion of Craig Hanson (procedures of fire marshal’s office) | Hanson would testify about office procedures and what should be documented in investigations | Hanson was not an expert in this case, was not employed during this investigation, and had no case‑specific facts; testimony lacked relevance and foundation | Exclusion appropriate: Hanson was not qualified as an expert on practices for this particular investigation and testimony lacked relevance |
| Double jeopardy from multiple murder/arson convictions | Convictions for aggravated first‑degree murder with an arson aggravator and first‑degree felony murder (predicated on arson) punish the same conduct | (State conceded after analysis) legislative intent treats those murder convictions as a single punishment when based on same conduct | Court vacated first‑degree felony murder conviction (double jeopardy), but held conviction for aggravated first‑degree murder plus separate first‑degree arson conviction did not violate double jeopardy because aggravators are not elements and the offenses differ in law |
Key Cases Cited
- Lakey v. Puget Sound Energy, 176 Wn.2d 909 (2013) (expert scientific evidence must satisfy Frye and ER 702 gatekeeping)
- State v. Jones, 168 Wn.2d 713 (2010) (constitutional right to present a defense; highly probative evidence generally must be admitted)
- Anderson v. Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc., 172 Wn.2d 593 (2011) (ER 702 reliability and helpfulness standards for expert testimony)
- State v. Clark, 187 Wn.2d 641 (2017) (trial court’s evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion; right to present defense considerations)
- State v. Kincaid, 103 Wn.2d 304 (1985) (aggravating factors are not elements of first‑degree murder for double jeopardy analysis)
- State v. Freeman, 153 Wn.2d 765 (2005) (merger doctrine presumption when one offense elevates degree of another)
- State v. Thomas, 166 Wn.2d 380 (2009) (aggravated first‑degree murder is premeditated first‑degree murder plus statutory aggravators)
- State v. Fuller, 185 Wn.2d 30 (2016) (double jeopardy protects against multiple punishments for same offense)