State of Washington v. Yan Gennadyevich Yefremov
34702-8
Wash. Ct. App. USep 28, 2017Background
- Yefremov was serving a 12‑month term of community custody beginning April 2014 with a condition to report twice monthly and be available to his CCO.
- He missed a scheduled in‑person supervision meeting on September 16, 2015 and did not contact his CCO; a warrant issued and he was arrested ~60 days later.
- Charged with escape from community custody under RCW 72.09.310, which requires the defendant to act “willfully.”
- At trial the court denied Yefremov’s proposed instruction defining “willful” as ‘‘acting intentionally and purposely’’ and instead gave WPIC 10.05 equating willfulness with acting knowingly.
- The CCO testified, without objection from defense counsel, that Yefremov had multiple prior abscondings and had been removed from treatment for absconding; Yefremov also testified he missed meetings because he expected positive drug tests.
- Jury convicted Yefremov; he appealed challenging (1) the willfulness instruction and (2) ineffective assistance for failure to object to testimony about prior abscondings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mens rea for escape from community custody: whether "willfully" requires purpose or knowledge | Yefremov: "willfully" requires purposeful/intentional conduct (higher mens rea) | State: RCW 9A.08.010(4) equates willfulness with knowledge unless legislature plainly indicates otherwise | Court: upheld WPIC — willfulness satisfied by knowledge; no error in denying instruction |
| Ineffective assistance for failure to object to CCO testimony about prior abscondings | Yefremov: counsel should have objected under ER 403/404(b); testimony was prejudicial propensity evidence | State: counsel’s failure was a tactical decision; testimony explained supervision status and was cumulative; Yefremov testified to similar facts | Court: no ineffective assistance — conduct was likely strategic and no prejudice shown |
| Prejudice from prior‑act testimony | Yefremov: references to prior abscondings unduly prejudiced jury | State: testimony was benign/contextual and Yefremov’s own admissions made it unlikely to affect outcome | Court: no reasonable probability of different outcome; no prejudice |
| Appellate costs | Yefremov: indigent; requests court decline costs if State substantially prevails | State: seeks appellate costs per RAP 14.2 | Court: remanded appellate‑cost determination to commissioner per RAP 14.2; allowed consideration of indigency |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Danforth, 97 Wn.2d 255 (1982) (interpreting former work‑release statute to require a purposeful mens rea to avoid criminalizing inadvertent failures to return on time)
- State v. Buttolph, 399 P.3d 554 (Wash. App. 2017) (held willfulness in RCW 72.09.310 is satisfied by knowledge; distinguished Danforth)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part ineffective assistance of counsel test)
- State v. Benn, 120 Wn.2d 631 (1993) (strong presumption that counsel’s conduct is reasonable; tactical decisions reviewed deferentially)
- State v. Kyllo, 166 Wn.2d 856 (2009) (ineffective assistance claims may be raised initially on appeal)