State Of Washington v. Zaida Cardenas-flores
374 P.3d 1217
Wash. Ct. App.2016Background
- Zaida Cardenas-Flores’ three-week-old son (CA) was treated for a displaced femur fracture after earlier X-rays (Dec. 18) showed no fracture; doctors concluded the fracture was recent and likely caused by compression plus torsion.
- Doctors reported the injury would cause severe pain and was inconsistent with the parents’ initial rollover explanation; Child Protective Services and police were notified.
- In a hospital interview, Cardenas-Flores told police she had forcefully pushed/straightened CA’s leg in a car seat and later acknowledged that act caused the injury; she recanted at trial, testifying she lied under pressure and maintained the rollover caused the fracture.
- The State charged her with second degree assault of a child (assault by battery). At trial the jury convicted; sentence included $3,109 in legal financial obligations (LFOs).
- On appeal Cardenas-Flores raised: corpus delicti/admissibility of her statements, sufficiency of evidence (intent and jurisdiction), instructional error (assault definition), prosecutorial misconduct (closing argument), ineffective assistance (failure to object), and LFO inquiry error. Court affirmed conviction but remanded for resentencing limited to LFO inquiry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Cardenas-Flores) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of defendant's statements / corpus delicti preservation | State: defendant failed to preserve corpus delicti objection at trial; statements were admissible. | Cardenas-Flores: statements should have been excluded because corpus delicti wasn't independently established. | Waiver: appellant failed to object at trial; court declines to address corpus delicti as new error on appeal. |
| Sufficiency — Intent (assault by battery) | State: proof required only that defendant intended the physical act (battery), not intent to cause substantial harm; statements and medical evidence suffice. | Cardenas-Flores: State did not prove she intended to cause substantial bodily injury. | Affirmed: intent element met because assault-by-battery requires intent to do the touching, proven by her admissions and other evidence. |
| Sufficiency — Jurisdiction (crime occurred in WA) | State: testimony placed the injurious act on Dec. 23 in Washington; medical evidence supports timing. | Cardenas-Flores: some travel to Oregon during charging period creates doubt and undermines jurisdiction proof. | Affirmed: evidence (her testimony, medical timeline) permitted inference the assault occurred in Washington. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct / burden-shifting in closing | State: prosecutor argued defendants’ explanations were implausible based on evidence and testimony; permissible rebuttal to their testimony. | Cardenas-Flores: prosecutor improperly shifted burden to defense to provide a plausible explanation. | No misconduct: argument attacked the credibility/plausibility of defendants’ testimony (which they offered) and did not impermissibly shift the burden. |
| Assault instruction adequacy | State: standard WPIC definition sufficed; no bracketed "with unlawful force" needed absent claim of lawful force. | Cardenas-Flores: instruction relieved State of proving unlawful touching or required mens rea. | No error: instruction was proper for assault-by-battery (intent to touch harmful/offensive), omission of bracketed phrase appropriate here. |
| Ineffective assistance (failure to object on corpus delicti and to prosecutor’s closing) | State: counsel's performance not prejudicial because independent evidence satisfied corpus delicti and closing was not misconduct. | Cardenas-Flores: counsel deficient for failing to object, causing prejudice. | No ineffective assistance: no prejudice shown — corpus delicti independently supported and prosecutor’s remarks were permissible. |
| LFOs — inquiry into ability to pay | State: LFOs imposed; no contemporaneous objection at sentencing. | Cardenas-Flores: sentencing court failed to inquire into present or future ability to pay LFOs. | Remand for resentencing limited to LFO issue: under Blazina court must inquire into defendant’s current or likely future ability to pay before imposing discretionary LFOs. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dow, 168 Wn.2d 243 (Wash. 2010) (corpus delicti doctrine addresses admissibility and sufficiency; confession alone cannot support conviction)
- State v. Aten, 130 Wn.2d 640 (Wash. 1996) (corpus delicti rule and requirement for independent corroboration)
- State v. Brockob, 159 Wn.2d 311 (Wash. 2007) (a defendant’s incriminating statement alone is insufficient; independent evidence required)
- State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827 (Wash. 2015) (sentencing court must inquire into defendant’s ability to pay LFOs before imposing discretionary costs)
- State v. Longshore, 141 Wn.2d 414 (Wash. 2000) (standard for sufficiency review: view evidence in light most favorable to State)
- State v. Hosier, 157 Wn.2d 1 (Wash. 2006) (reasonable inferences drawn for the State on sufficiency review)
- State v. Varga, 151 Wn.2d 179 (Wash. 2004) (parity of weight between direct and circumstantial evidence)
- State v. Camarillo, 115 Wn.2d 60 (Wash. 1990) (credibility determinations for the jury)
- State v. Daniels, 87 Wn. App. 149 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997) (assault by battery does not require specific intent to inflict substantial bodily harm)
- State v. Keend, 140 Wn. App. 858 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007) (proof of intent limited to intent to perform the physical act for assault-by-battery)