State v. Washington
330 P.3d 596
| Or. | 2014Background
- Defendant was sentenced to death for aggravated murder and felon in possession of a firearm after trial and direct/automatic review; issues arose from 22 trial rulings during guilt and penalty phases.
- Defendant and Stafford had a long relationship with two children; Stafford began seeing Jabbie, the murder victim, in 2004 while living apart from defendant.
- Defendant learned of Stafford’s relationship and threatened Jabbie, attempted to influence Stafford to lie to a grand jury, and helped track Jabbie’s whereabouts.
- Stafford testified to the grand jury; later, she testified against defendant in exchange for dismissal of charges against her; police linked defendant to the murder through cell-phone data.
- Jabbie was found dead, murdered with multiple gunshot wounds; cell phone and witness evidence connected defendant to movements around the time of the murder; defendant was charged with two counts of aggravated murder and related felon-in-possession counts.
- The trial court merged the murder and aggravated murder convictions, merged felon-in-possession counts, and sentenced defendant to death; this court reviews the convictions and sentence on automatic and direct review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of corroboration under ORS 136.440 | Stafford’s accomplice testimony requires corroboration. | Corroboration must independently connect defendant to the crime; cell data is insufficient. | Record contains sufficient corroboration when viewed with all evidence combining to connect defendant to the murder. |
| Use of stun device in courtroom | Security concerns justified restraining defendant to protect proceedings. | Restraints impair right to counsel and fair trial; insufficient record of necessity. | No abuse of discretion; device not visible to jurors; proper findings and procedure supported its use. |
| Anonymous jury during voir dire | Anonymous juries permissible for juror safety; no prejudice shown. | Anonymity could impair defendant’s ability to challenge bias; findings required. | Court did not err; findings supported anonymity and proper precautions protected impartiality. |
| Penalty-phase security measures and notice | Security measures necessary given threats; deliberations could be fair with precautions. | Non-disclosure and hidden measures tainted jury and violated rights. | No reversible error; security measures and lack of advance notice did not prejudice defendant; jurors instructed to base verdict on evidence. |
| Mercy instruction in penalty phase | Instruction consistent with law requiring consideration of mitigating evidence. | Defendant asked for mercy-based instruction; law forbids mercy-based verdicts not tied to evidence. | Instruction not required; mercy alone cannot drive verdict; court properly instructed to base on mitigating evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Walton, 311 Or 223 (1991) (accomplice corroboration; any evidence tending to connect is sufficient for jury to decide sufficiency)
- State v. Moen, 309 Or 45 (1990) (sympathy/mercy instructions; sympathy has no place in capital sentencing)
- State v. Moore, 324 Or 396 (1996) (two mercy/sympathy instructions; mercy alone not permissible; must be tied to mitigating evidence)
- State v. Sundberg, 349 Or 608 (2011) (anonymous juries; require specific findings and safeguards to protect impartiality)
- State v. Rogers, 352 Or 510 (2012) (continues Sundberg framework; anonymity risks in capital sentencing; need findings and precautions)