State v. Ryan
252 P.3d 895
Wash. Ct. App.2011Background
- George Ryan and Evette White had a volatile relationship with repeated domestic violence reports prior to June 2009.
- During the June 2009 incident, Ryan, while intoxicated and with a knife, threatened to cut and kill White and warned about their daughters.
- Ryan accidentally cut his own leg and fled; White called police and officers found Ryan under a tarp with the knife on his person.
- Ryan was charged with second degree assault and felony harassment, with two aggravators: domestic violence and a pattern of abuse; also charged that the felony harassment was while armed with a deadly weapon.
- The jury found Ryan guilty on both counts and the court imposed exceptional sentences of 70 months and 60 months on the respective convictions.
- Ryan appealed challenging the jury instructions on the special verdicts for sentencing and the exclusion of certain evidence; the published portion concerns the jury instruction issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unanimity was required for special verdicts on sentencing. | Ryan argues Bashaw error requires unanimity for sentencing findings. | State contends unanimity is not required for negative findings on aggravation. | Unanimity required for sentencing findings; error vacates sentences. |
| Whether the unanimity error is constitutional and reversible on appeal. | Ryan claims manifest constitutional error under Bashaw due to the instruction. | State argues not constitutional or harmless beyond the doubt. | Error deemed constitutional and reversible; vacates exceptional sentences. |
| Whether the statute on aggravating circumstances requires unanimity for affirmative findings only. | Ryan asserts unanimity applies to aggravating findings as a whole. | State reads RCW 9.94A.537(3) to require unanimity only for affirmative findings. | Unanimity is required for affirmative aggravating findings; if not unanimous, enhanced sentence cannot be imposed. |
| Whether retrial for aggravated circumstances is permissible after reversal. | Ryan contends Bashaw’s concerns about economy/finality justify retrial. | State relies on Bashaw’s rationale against allowing retrial; no clear basis distinguishable here. | No basis to distinguish Bashaw; vacates and remands for proceedings consistent with opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bashaw, 169 Wash.2d 133 (2010) (unanimity for sentencing verdicts erroneous; due process concerns)
- State v. Goldberg, 149 Wash.2d 888 (2003) (jury must unanimously find affirmative verdict; negative answer allowed when not unanimous)
- State v. O'Hara, 167 Wash.2d 91 (2009) (harmless error standard; structural errors treated carefully)
- State v. Nunez, 160 Wash.App. 150 (2011) (addressing similar instructional error concerns on appeal)
- In re Skylstad, 160 Wash.2d 944 (2007) (read statutes as a whole; consider overall language)
- State v. Brown, 147 Wash.2d 330 (2002) (harmless error standard and related considerations)