State v. W.R.
336 P.3d 1134
Wash.2014Background
- Juvenile defendant W.R. was adjudicated guilty of second-degree rape (forcible compulsion) after a bench trial; the court found the victim J.F. credible and W.R. not credible.
- W.R. conceded intercourse but claimed it was consensual; the trial court and parties proceeded under Washington precedent requiring the defendant to prove consent by a preponderance.
- W.R. appealed, arguing that forcing him to prove consent violated due process because consent negates the element of forcible compulsion.
- The Court granted review to address whether due process permits placing on the defendant the burden to prove consent when forcible compulsion is an element.
- The Supreme Court overruled prior Washington precedent (State v. Camara; State v. Gregory), held consent necessarily negates forcible compulsion, and remanded for a new trial because requiring proof of consent by a preponderance violated due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (W.R.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process permits requiring a defendant to prove consent by a preponderance when the crime requires forcible compulsion | Consents and forcible compulsion merely "conceptually overlap"; overlap is not complete, so defendant can bear burden to prove consent | Consent necessarily negates forcible compulsion so the State must disprove consent beyond a reasonable doubt; shifting burden violates Winship due process rule | Court held consent necessarily negates forcible compulsion; due process forbids requiring defendant to prove consent by a preponderance; State must prove lack of consent as part of forcible compulsion element beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Proper application of the "negates" analysis after Martin and Smith | The Martin line allows burden-shifting for some defenses; consent often negates but does not always negate forcible compulsion | Smith clarified that when a defense necessarily negates an element the State cannot shift the burden; thus negates analysis controls | Court applied "negates" analysis, concluding consent necessarily negates forcible compulsion and Martin/Gregory/Camara were incorrectly interpreted and are overruled to the extent inconsistent |
| Remedy for the constitutional error in W.R.’s trial | The State argued the error was harmless because the judge’s credibility findings would be the same under the correct standard | W.R. argued the burden-shift materially affected the proceedings; reversible error warranted | Court found error not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and remanded for a new trial |
| Interaction with rape-reform goals (focus on perpetrator) | Emphasized statutory language focusing on forcible compulsion rather than express lack-of-consent element; permitted prior approach | Argued shifting burden back undermines reform and risks refocusing on victim | Court held constitutional due-process protections require State to disprove consent where consent negates an element, while noting this need not reinstitute victim-focused instructions; left statutory interpretation question subordinate to constitutional rule |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (due process requires proof of every element beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (legislatures may allocate burden for affirmative defenses that do not negate elements)
- Martin v. Ohio, 480 U.S. 228 (upholding placing burden of proving self-defense on defendant where defense excuses but does not necessarily negate element)
- Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (distinction between defenses that excuse conduct and those that negate elements)
- Smith v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 714 (clarified that the State must bear burden when a defense necessarily negates an element)
- Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 (framework for constitutional protection against burden-shifting that relieves prosecution of proving elements)
- State v. Camara, 113 Wn.2d 631 (overruled in part) (prior Washington decision permitting defendant to bear burden to prove consent)
- State v. Gregory, 158 Wn.2d 759 (overruled in part) (reaffirmed Camara)
- State v. Riker, 123 Wn.2d 351 (discussed burden and defenses; previously relied upon to support Camara)
- Spicer v. Gregoire, 194 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir.) (noting consent appears to negate forcible compulsion and that burdening defendant may raise due process concerns)