309 P.3d 428
Wash.2013Background
- Six members of the Anderson family were murdered in Carnation, Washington on December 24, 2007, including two young children.
- McEnroe and Anderson were charged with six counts of aggravated first-degree murder under RCW 10.95.040.
- The prosecuting attorney extended mitigation submission deadlines and, after reviewing mitigating evidence, filed notices of special sentencing in October 2008 to seek the death penalty.
- Defense motions sought information about the prosecutor’s decision-making, culminating in a 2012 motion to dismiss the notices on equal protection and due process grounds.
- The trial court struck the notices in January 2013, holding that considering the strength of the State’s case violated RCW 10.95.040 and equal protection.
- The Supreme Court reversed, holding prosecutors may consider the strength of the evidence in determining whether to file notices and remanded to reinstate the notices so trials may proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can prosecutors weigh case strength when filing a death-penalty notice? | Anderson, McEnroe: improper to consider strength of the State's case. | State: permissible to consider strength of the evidence as part of mitigating assessment. | Permissible; strength of the case may be considered. |
| Does RCW 10.95.040(1) limit consideration to mitigating factors only? | Mitigation only; other factors impermissible. | Statute silent; other factors may be considered. | Other information, including case strength, may be considered when determining to seek death. |
| Does weighing evidence against mitigating factors violate equal protection? | Differing punishments for identical elements based on case strength violates equal protection. | Individualized weighing permits discretion within constitutional bounds. | No equal protection violation; individualized weighing is constitutional. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Veliz, 176 Wn.2d 849 (2013) (statutory interpretation and legislative intent in capital cases)
- State v. Davis, 175 Wn.2d 287 (2012) (acknowledges strength of the State's case as a factor)
- State v. Rupe, 101 Wn.2d 664 (1984) (recognizes discretionary considerations in capital punishment decisions)
- State v. Campbell, 103 Wn.2d 1 (1984) (equal protection and individualized weighing in capital decisions)
- State v. Pirtle, 127 Wn.2d 628 (1995) (requires individualized weighing of mitigating factors)
- In re. Pers. Restraint of Harris, 111 Wn.2d 691 (1988) (rejects inflexible policies in capital punishment discretion)