State v. Condon, 343 P.3d 357

Background

On Jan. 20, 2009 two intruders entered a Toppenish home intending to rob a presumed drug dealer; Carmelo Ramirez was shot and later died. Jesus Lozano (one intruder) later identified Joel Condon as the shooter. Gregorio (victim’s partner) also identified Condon in a lineup and at trial.
State charged Condon with aggravated first‑degree (premeditated) murder (with burglary/robbery aggravators), first‑degree felony murder (burglary/attempted robbery), first‑degree burglary, and unlawful possession of a firearm. Jury convicted Condon of aggravated first‑degree murder, first‑degree burglary, and second‑degree unlawful possession of a firearm; he received life without parole.
Defense argued mistaken identity and requested a lesser‑included instruction on second‑degree (intentional, non‑premeditated) murder; the trial court denied the instruction and the jury convicted on premeditated murder.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the trial court erred by refusing the lesser‑included instruction; the State sought review. The Supreme Court granted review on two issues: sufficiency of evidence of premeditation and entitlement to the lesser‑included instruction.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals: evidence was sufficient to support premeditation, but the trial court erred in denying the lesser‑included instruction because Workman’s two‑pronged test was satisfied as to the premeditated murder charge.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Condon)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence of premeditation	Evidence (entering armed to commit robbery; shooting during burglary) supports premeditation.	Shooting was reactionary to a struggle; no prior reflection.	Affirmed: evidence sufficient for premeditation when viewed in State’s favor.
Entitlement to lesser‑included instruction (second‑degree intentional murder)	Trial court correctly denied because lesser must be excluded as to all charged alternatives (including felony murder) or evidence did not exclude felony murder.	Entitled to instruction because second‑degree murder is a lesser of premeditated murder and evidence supported an inference of impulsive, non‑premeditated killing.	Reversed trial court: under Berlin/Workman, defendant entitled to instruction as to the premeditated murder charge because both legal and factual prongs satisfied.
Scope of Workman factual prong when both intentional and felony murder charged	State: factual prong should consider both charged alternatives (intentional and felony murder); felony murder may bar lesser instruction.	Condon: factual prong should focus only on the intentional/premeditated charge (per Berlin/Warden).	Court adopts Berlin/Warden line: for Workman both prongs may be satisfied by reference to the intentional/premeditated charge alone; felony murder need not block the instruction.
Harmless‑error analysis for omitted lesser instruction	State: any error was harmless because jury convicted of premeditated murder and burglary, indicating jury found premeditation and burglary facts.	Condon: omission was prejudicial because jury was not instructed on the distinction between intent and premeditation.	Majority: error not harmless under controlling precedent (Parker); Court of Appeals’ reversal stands. (Concurring justice would find harmless error.)

Key Cases Cited

State v. Workman, 90 Wn.2d 443 (1978) (two‑pronged test for lesser included offense instructions: legal and factual prongs)
State v. Berlin, 133 Wn.2d 541 (1997) (overruling Lucky; lesser instruction need only satisfy Workman as to one charged alternative)
State v. Warden, 133 Wn.2d 559 (1997) (companion to Berlin; applies Workman/Berlin reasoning)
State v. Pirtle, 127 Wn.2d 628 (1995) (definition of premeditation: deliberate formation and reflection)
State v. Luvene, 127 Wn.2d 690 (1995) (sufficiency review; robbery intent can support premeditation)
State v. Miller, 164 Wash. 441 (1931) (premeditation can be formed to facilitate robbery)
State v. Ortiz, 119 Wn.2d 294 (1992) (earlier line treating felony murder alternative as relevant to factual prong)
State v. Parker, 102 Wn.2d 161 (1984) (failure to give warranted lesser included instruction has required reversal)