315 P.3d 562
Wash. Ct. App.2013Background
- Walker was convicted of first degree murder, first degree assault, first degree robbery, solicitation, and conspiracy in connection with a Walmart armored-truck robbery and murder.
- The State charged Walker as an accomplice and sought aggravated penalties; the State also challenged jury instructions on premeditation and accomplice liability.
- On appeal, Walker contends the “to convict” premeditated murder instruction violated due process by allowing accomplice liability without proving the principal committed all elements; the State cross-appeals about an aggravating-language issue.
- Facts show Finley and Turpin killed the Loomis driver inside Walmart; Finley shot the victim, Turpin grabbed the money, and Walker is identified as the Buick driver by witness identification and fingerprint.
- Williams-Irby reported the stolen Buick, which was linked to Walker; cash and safes were found in Walker’s and Trevino’s locations; Walker admitted being at Walmart after the robbery and to involvement in planning and aiding the crime.
- Trial court instructed on accomplice liability and premeditation; the jury convicted Walker and found aggravating factors; the court merged murder convictions for sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Premeditation instruction and accomplice liability | Walker | Walker | Instructions upheld; no due process violation; proper accomplice liability |
| Unanimity and split-the-elements concern | Walker | Walker | No unanimity requirement; accomplice liability allows split elements |
| Prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance | Walker | Walker | No reversible misconduct; counsel not ineffective |
| CrR 3.6 suppression hearing denial | Walker | Walker | CrR 3.6 denial correct; suppression within warrant scope |
| State cross-appeal regarding aggravating-language instruction | State | Walker | Issue not reached on appeal; no remand to address |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Haack, 88 Wn. App. 423 (1997) (accomplice-liability instructions may permit conviction without unanimity as to which participant bore which element)
- State v. Hoffman, 116 Wn.2d 51 (1991) (conviction upheld even if jury may identify different principals or accomplices)
- State v. Carothers, 84 Wn.2d 256 (1974) (participation suffices for liability; elements unchanged by participation type)
- State v. Levy, 156 Wn.2d 709 (2006) (standard for reviewing jury instructions de novo)
- State v. Clausing, 147 Wn.2d 620 (2002) (jurors must be able to argue theory of the case based on proper instructions)