327 P.3d 1276
Wash. Ct. App.2014Background
- At night in Tukwila, John Harris (driving with a suspended license) struck pedestrian Clashana Grayson after she got off a bus; Harris stopped briefly and then left the scene; a second unidentified car later ran over Grayson and she died.
- Harris was charged with felony hit-and-run and driving with a suspended license; convicted by jury and received a total sentence of 87 months.
- The court ordered Harris to pay $8,655.22 restitution to Grayson’s relatives for burial expenses as part of the sentence for driving with a suspended license; the State did not seek restitution on the hit-and-run conviction.
- Harris appealed the restitution order, arguing statutory authority and causation were lacking; he also challenged denial of substitute counsel and an in-chambers voir dire discussion.
- The Court of Appeals examined statutory restitution standards (RCW 9A.20.030) and Washington precedent on causation for restitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to order restitution for burial expenses | State: restitution authorized when defendant "caused a victim to lose money or property" through a crime | Harris: driving with a suspended license is not an offense that involves monetary loss; relatives are not "victims" | Court: Statute covers victims who suffer monetary loss; relatives paying burial expenses qualify as victims; restitution authorized |
| Causation standard for restitution | State: must show "but for" causation between the crime and the victim's loss | Harris: lack of proximate-cause style connection; other drivers could have caused the death; cites Hartwell and out-of-state cases | Court: Washington requires only "but for" causation; driving with suspended license was a but-for cause of the burial expenses; restitution affirmed |
| Applicability of Hartwell (hit-and-run causation) | Harris: Hartwell shows restitution improper where offense occurred after injury | State: restitution was tied to driving with suspended license (the act that put him behind the wheel), not the hit-and-run | Court: Hartwell inapposite because the charged crime here was driving while suspended (which preceded and caused the collision), so restitution remains proper |
| Denial of request for substitute counsel and voir dire issue | Harris: trial court abused discretion by denying new counsel and by holding an in-chambers juror discussion without him | State: request was a single bare allegation months before trial; court re-conducted voir dire after realizing error | Court: Denial proper (no sufficient breakdown shown; untimely); brief chambers conference cured by restarting voir dire; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thomas, 138 Wn. App. 78 (restitution standard and abuse-of-discretion review)
- State v. Griffith, 164 Wn.2d 960 (focus on underlying facts for causation inquiry)
- State v. Enstone, 137 Wn.2d 675 (foreseeability not required for restitution causation)
- State v. Tobin, 161 Wn.2d 517 ("but for" causation for restitution)
- State v. Hartwell, 38 Wn. App. 135 (distinguishes when offense occurs after victim's injury)
- Schuette v. State, 822 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. case rejecting restitution based solely on license suspension; requires additional causal relation)
- State v. LaFlam, 965 A.2d 519 (Vt. case rejecting "but for" alone for restitution)
- State v. Irby, 170 Wn.2d 874 (prohibits trial-court juror fitness decisions outside defendant's presence)