State v. Williams
159 Wash. App. 298
Wash. Ct. App.2011Background
- Williams released from King County jail on Sept 13, 2008, later rebooked after night-time assault on Officer Shearer with a hemostat.
- Information amended to include rapid recidivism aggravator requiring jury finding; trial bifurcated to address this factor.
- Jury found Williams guilty of assault in the third degree in phase one; phase two determined the aggravating factor.
- Jury found the offense was committed shortly after being released from incarceration (within 24 hours).
- Standard sentencing range for assault in the third degree was 9–12 months; statutory max is 60 months; court imposed a 36-month exceptional sentence with written findings.
- Williams appealed asserting insufficiency, instructional error on aggravator, due process/vagueness claims, mistrial, and related issues; the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was sufficient evidence for the assault conviction | Williams | State | Sustained sufficiency; reasonable juror could find intent and liability |
| Whether rapid recidivism jury instruction constitutionally adequate | Williams | State | Not constitutionally defective; extra definitional elements not required |
| Whether the rapid recidivism aggravator violated Sixth Amendment jury trial rights | Williams | State | No constitutional violation; jury found aggravator and court could sentence within range |
| Whether RCW 9.94A.535(3)(t) is unconstitutionally vague as applied | Williams | State | Not vague as applied; 24 hours after release fits 'shortly after' |
| Whether the spectator misconduct denial of mistrial was error | Williams | State | Not an abuse of discretion; comments not prejudicial to outcome; no mistrial warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192 (Wash. 1992) (sufficiency review; circumstantial and direct evidence treated alike)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004) (criminal sentencing cannot exceed maximum based on facts found by jury only)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (any fact increasing sentence beyond statutory max must be found by jury)
- State v. O’Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91 (Wash. 2009) (due process; element-by-element definition not required for sentencing factors)
- State v. Scott, 110 Wn.2d 682 (Wash. 1988) (definitional scope of jury instructions; elements versus explanations)
- State v. Hughes, 154 Wn.2d 118 (Wash. 2005) (rapid recidivism analysis; jury must determine aggravator; statutory context)
- State v. Saltz, 137 Wn. App. 576 (Wash. App. 2007) (recidivism timing and contextual factors supporting exception)
- State v. Butler, 75 Wn. App. 47 (Wash. App. 1994) (rapid recidivism as substantial and compelling reason for exceptional sentence)
- State v. Gordon, 153 Wn. App. 516 (Wash. App. 2009) (discussion of appellate treatment of speedy recidivism as aggravator)
- State v. Clarke, 156 Wn.2d 880 (Wash. 2006) (Sixth Amendment; sentencing factors within range may involve non-jury findings)