State v. Ponce
166 Wash. App. 409
Wash. Ct. App.2012Background
- Ponce was charged with second degree burglary (RCW 9A.52.030) for an incident at Llantera Medina.
- Defense relied on a permissible-entry theory to negate unlawful entry, citing statements that two men invited him in.
- Ponce proposed a modified instruction extending permissible-entry defense to burglary; the State proposed the standard trespass instruction only.
- The trial court refused the modified instruction, but gave a pattern criminal trespass instruction; court noted defense could be argued under the law and intent requirements.
- Evidence showed conflicting accounts: Ponce claimed invitation by others; Medina family denied others had a key; officers documented inconsistent statements.
- Jury found Ponce guilty of burglary; on appeal, Ponce challenged the refusal to give his proposed instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permissible-entry defense to burglary should be instructed | Ponce; J.P. requires instruction for burglary. | State; no statutory defense to burglary as to permissible entry. | Not required; instructions as a whole sufficed to inform law and defense. |
| Whether the court's refusal to give the modified permissible-entry instruction was reversible error | Ponce; error absent the instruction given the theory of defense. | State; no reversible error because the jury was properly instructed and could argue the theory. | Harmless error; no reasonable probability the result would differ without the instruction. |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence to support instructing on permissible entry | Ponce; evidence supported permissible-entry as negating unlawful-entry element. | State; evidence inconsistent with permissive entry and supports unlawful entry and intent. | There was sufficient evidence to support a permissible-entry theory if believed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. J.P., 130 Wash.App. 887, 125 P.3d 215 (2005) (permits abandonment as defense to burglary by negating unlawful entry element)
- City of Bremerton v. Widell, 146 Wash.2d 561, 51 P.3d 733 (2002) (statutory defenses negate unlawful presence in criminal trespass)
- State v. Jensen, 149 Wash.App. 393, 203 P.3d 393 (2009) (RCW 9A.52.090 defenses apply to trespass; caution against overreaching to burglary)
- State v. Williams, 132 Wash.2d 248, 937 P.2d 1052 (1997) (entitlement to instructions on defense theories when supported by evidence)
- State v. Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wash.2d 448, 6 P.3d 1150 (2000) (substantial-evidence standard for jury instruction decisions)
- State v. Brown, 147 Wash.2d 330, 58 P.3d 889 (2002) (harmless-error framework for instructional errors)