State v. Trebilcock
184 Wash. App. 619
Wash. Ct. App.2014Background
- Jeffrey and Rebecca Trebilcock were charged with multiple counts of criminal mistreatment of five adopted children; convictions at bench trial for first-degree mistreatment of J.T. and third-degree mistreatment of A.T. and acquittals on other counts.
- Evidence showed severe, prolonged deprivation (rationing food, cold exposure, paddling, alarms to prevent eating), J.T. was critically malnourished and hypothermic and improved rapidly after removal; A.T. likewise was underweight and recovered in foster care.
- The court found two aggravating factors as to J.T.: (1) the offense involved domestic violence that was part of an ongoing pattern of psychological/physical abuse, and (2) the Trebilcocks used a position of trust; Rebecca received an exceptional sentence above the standard range.
- During sentencing the judge referenced a Bible verse in criticizing Rebecca’s testimony about being "biblically convicted" regarding diet; Rebecca argued the judge injected his religious beliefs into sentencing.
- Rebecca had waived a jury trial before the information was later amended to add aggravating factors; the State and court proceeded with the judge deciding aggravators. Jeffrey received concurrent sentences and a condition requiring substance-abuse treatment (later challenged).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the judge’s biblical reference at sentencing violated Rebecca’s due process by imposing sentence based on the judge’s religious beliefs | Judge injected his personal religious preferences into sentencing; sentence must be vacated and resentenced before a different judge | The judge’s biblical reference merely expressed a secular principle (protecting children) and responded to defendants’ invocation of religion at trial; it was one of many sentencing factors | No due-process violation; reference conveyed a secular point and was not the sole basis for sentence |
| Whether exceptional sentence violated Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to jury determination of aggravating factors because waiver occurred before amendment adding aggravators | Waiver before amended information did not cover jury determination of newly alleged aggravators; need jury finding for aggravators | Rebecca knowingly and voluntarily waived jury for the trial and acquiesced to judge deciding aggravators; she never sought to revoke waiver | Waiver was valid and encompassed judge deciding aggravators; no Sixth/Fourteenth Amendment violation |
| Whether the "ongoing pattern" and "abuse of trust" aggravators were impermissible or inherent in the underlying crime (so cannot support exceptional sentence) | Aggravators inhere in criminal mistreatment (which requires withholding basics); abuse of trust applies only to intentional crimes or is duplicative | Statutory language and facts support treating criminal mistreatment as domestic violence and ongoing-pattern need not inhere in every first-degree mistreatment—misconduct can be brief or prolonged | Ongoing-pattern aggravator valid here; because court said either aggravator alone would support sentence, decision affirmed without resolving abuse-of-trust challenge |
| Whether Jeffrey’s sentence improperly included substance-abuse treatment as a condition | (Argued by Jeffrey in unpublished portion) court improperly imposed substance-abuse treatment condition | Trial court imposed treatment condition as part of misdemeanor sentence | Appellate court remanded to strike substance-abuse treatment from Jeffrey’s sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349 (U.S. 1977) (due process governs sentencing procedure and consideration of extraneous factors)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004) (defendant has right to jury determination of any fact that increases maximum penalty unless waived)
- United States v. Bakker, 925 F.2d 728 (4th Cir. 1991) (judge may not base sentence on personal religious beliefs)
- United States v. Traxler, 477 F.3d 1243 (10th Cir. 2007) (religious references that illustrate secular sentencing principles are not reversible error)
- Arnett v. Jackson, 393 F.3d 681 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting scripture at sentencing did not violate due process where it underscored secular sentencing goals)
- Gordon v. Vose, 879 F. Supp. 179 (D.R.I. 1995) (use of biblical language to express secular principle at sentencing is permissible)
- State v. Rotko, 116 Wn. App. 230 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003) (criminal mistreatment may occur over short or prolonged periods; ongoing pattern not inherent)