State v. O'Dell
183 Wash. 2d 680
Wash.2015Background
- O’Dell, just past 18, raped a 12-year-old A.N. ten days after his birthday; standard range sentence was 95 months.
- Trial court instructed the jury that a reasonable belief that the victim was at least 14 or less than 36 months younger could be an affirmative defense, based on declarations as to age by the victim.
- In the first trial, jurors asked whether age declarations could be verbal or nonverbal; mistrial followed.
- In the second trial, O’Dell renewed the request for the affirmative defense instruction, which the court denied; he was convicted.
- At sentencing, O’Dell sought an exceptional sentence below the standard range arguing youth diminished culpability; the trial court declined to consider youth under Ha’mim, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
- This Court affirms the conviction but remands for a new sentencing hearing to consider whether youth diminished O’Dell’s culpability, disavowing Ha’mim’s exclusion of youth from consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jury instruction on age-based affirmative defense was supported | O’Dell | O’Dell | Instruction not warranted; no age declarations sufficient |
| Whether youth can justify an exceptional sentence below standard range | O’Dell seeks downward departure based on youth | State argues Ha’mim bars reliance on youth alone | Youth may mitigate; remand for new sentencing to determine if youth diminished culpability |
| Whether trial court failed to consider youth as mitigating factor? | O’Dell asserts court ignored evidence of youth | Court did not abuse discretion; evidence insufficient | Trial court abused discretion; remand for new hearing to assess youth impact |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ha’mim, 132 Wn.2d 834 (Wash. 1997) (limits on youth as automatic mitigating factor; necessity of showing diminished capacity)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (U.S. 2010) (juvenile sentencing distinctions and culpability considerations)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (U.S. 2005) (youth development affects culpability; cannot equate youth with diminished responsibility automatically)
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) (adolescent brain development may mitigate culpability; not automatic for adults over 18)
- State v. Fisher, 108 Wn.2d 419 (Wash. 1987) (victim’s specific vulnerability may justify departure from range; particularized analysis allowed)