311 P.3d 61
Wash. Ct. App.2013Background
- Lindsey was convicted of trafficking in stolen property in the first degree for allegedly facilitating theft for sale and trafficking stolen property.
- Amended information defined RCW 9A.82.050(1) and omitted the word 'initiate' before 'organize' in the factual charge.
- Lindsey and his counsel faced repeated concerns about conflicts; Lindsey waived conflicts at one hearing but later sought new counsel which the court denied.
- Trial court instructed jurors on two means of committing the offense, adding 'initiated' to the jury instruction despite the amendment.
- Lindsey challenged sufficiency of the information, the uncharged alternative instruction, and unanimity; the court rejected these and affirmed conviction.
- On appeal, the court held there are two alternative means under RCW 9A.82.050(1) and addressed the sister issues of notice, instruction, unanimity, and counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| How many alternative means exist under RCW 9A.82.050(1)? | Lindsey | Lindsey | Two means identified; eight rejected |
| Was the information constitutionally sufficient to provide notice of the charge? | Lindsey | State | Information sufficient under liberal construction |
| Did the trial court error by instructing on an uncharged alternative? | Lindsey | State | No ruling due to failure to object; not reached on appeal |
| Does the right to a unanimous verdict require unanimity on the means when there are only two means? | Lindsey | State | Unanimity not required; sufficient evidence supports two means |
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying new counsel due to conflicts? | Lindsey | State | No abuse; Cross factors support denial |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Peterson, 168 Wn.2d 763 (Washington Supreme Court, 2010) (guidance on determining alternative means and related analyses)
- State v. Smith, 159 Wn.2d 778 (Washington Supreme Court, 2007) (discusses alternative means when statutes list methods)
- State v. Leach, 113 Wn.2d 679 (Washington Supreme Court, 1989) (essential elements rule for charging documents)
- Kjorsvik v. State, 117 Wn.2d 93 (Washington Supreme Court, 1991) (liberal construction of charging documents; prejudice analysis)
- State v. Winings, 126 Wn. App. 75 (Washington Court of Appeals, 2005) (information sufficiency with dates and location; sufficient notice)
- State v. Ortega-Martinez, 124 Wn.2d 702 (Washington Supreme Court, 1994) (unanimity implications for means-based offenses)
- State v. Chino, 117 Wn. App. 531 (Washington Court of Appeals, 2003) (instruction on charges and uncharged theories; harmless error analysis)
- State v. Brewczynski, 173 Wn. App. 541 (Washington Court of Appeals, 2013) (unobjected trial errors and review limits)